4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
10:43 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harris<steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote:
On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
You are, but dynamic linkage with the GPL is a complete minefield as
well, because it really hinges on what might be considered a derived
work in copyright terms rather than on the content of the GPL. (The
FSF has a position that I think is a convenient oversimplification,
which is that any dynamic loading forms a derived work. Others
disagree -- Linus for example with his binary kernel modules. The GPL
does contain a line about applicability "when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program", but
it basically seems to be the license ruling itself on whether it
applies or not, and I don't think it's the only possible authority for
that -- if there is no derived work in pure copyright terms, then it
doesn't make any difference what the GPL says about derived works.)
Chris
I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host
with their licence.
There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and
loadtime linking.
D'oh. I think I'm confusing the LGPL and the GPL too.