7 Aug
2009
7 Aug
'09
11:23 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Dr Nicholas J Bailey wrote:
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
i guess your understanding is correct.
in a past thread (feb. 2004) on the piksel list regarding licensing of
video plugins, i've asked the FSF regarding this issue and got this
reply:
"Legally speaking, there's never been a case which discussed
this. FSF believes that dlopen operates the same way as
compile-time linking." Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick
Bailey wrote:
My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run
a
separate process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be
separate. But AFAIK, same memory space => derived work. Well, calling it your own is out of order, but
as long as they
release their source code as required by the GPL, then selling
it is a Good Thing (TM). I hope the LADs agree with me. I would
certainly be delighted if my GPL'd stuff (which isn't directly
related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd applications.
Two question arise:
- Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a 'derived
work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean' version of
ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST headers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp8K/wACgkQe2QxhLU0C152dACgpcieOzJcSM79DKwZ4jDamK28
sQ0An14n5WVLQ1fthbvaaGeq3DUIVdr8
=Xdi6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----