6 Aug
2009
6 Aug
'09
4:53 a.m.
Quoting "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>om>:
* The FSF is on crack if they believe that you can
possibly call a
LADSPA host a derivative work of any number of LADSPA
plugins unless the host automatically loads and uses those
plugins to provide non-optional functionality to the user.
I think this is the key difference. And it should be reflected in a
"good" license for open source plugins. In my mind it's not really
about distribution, but actually how the plugins are used by the
software.
I am still deeply disappointed that this issue, which
has been around
for more than a decade, was not resolved in GPL v3. Its absurd that we
should still be debating this in 2009. The FSF needs to:
(1) describe the differences between static linkage, dynamic
linkage and run-time linkage
We need to reflect what you said earlier in the linkage categories
We need to have:
- static linkage
- dyamic linkage
- run-time linkage
- user-initiated run-time linkage
The last category is where the usual DAW etc. comes in. I fear that
Beat Kangz might be using my limiter (or some other GPL'd plugin) as
an inherent part of their processing chain. If this is the case, they
have stepped over a significant boundary regarding the spirit of GPL.
I've been trying to find a manual / video which would show how
processing is configured in Beat Kangz. Has someone stumbled on one?
Sampo