5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
9:16 a.m.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 11:49, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
I agree.
Agreed.
- Steve
Quoting "Steve Harris"
<steve(a)plugin.org.uk>uk>:
That's right, it didn't mention licences.
An update.
I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking
for retrospective permission, or something along those lines.
Hi,
I wonder if we have received the same email? The email I got did not
mention any specific license or even a type of license they would
like. At least I don't think they were asking for the plugins under a
non-GPL license. To me it sounded like they were making a proposal on
how to become compliant with GPL. I'm not
going to grant it - I don't really think I can, the "SWH"
plugins represent the work of far too many people for me to feel
comfortable doing that, and it's not necessary anyway, as long as
they
stick by whatever the conditions of the licence may be. But, I don't
actually have a clear idea of what the GPL says should happen.
GPL + plugins seems to be a really iffy combination. I myself find the
plugin interface separating the host from the plugins sufficient. The
linkage happens when the user acts to load the plugin. This runtime
linkage is never distributed, distribution being where GPL viral
clauses would kick in. An hard-wired piece of software like Jamin on the
other hand would be
more tricky. In such a case it might be necessary for the proprietary
host to be separately distributed from the plugins. Might. Who knows?
This discussion does raise a good question about which license LADSPA
and LV2 plugins should use. GPL might just be too viral and too
restrictive.
At the least it seems like a specific mention that it's OK to load the
plugins into a proprietary host (if that's what you intend) is a good
idea.
Consensus
seems to be that they need to distribute code for the
plugins they include, but whether they are allowed to ship the
plugins
is another question.
The crazy thing is that if they shipped their host in one package,
and
redistributed some LADPSA plugins (with source) in another then they
would not be violating the licence as far as I can see - both actions
are perfectly legitimate in isolation. However, shipping them in one
package might be some sort of violation.
I'm too much of a pragmatic to consider the amount of packages being
delivered to be that relevant. It's like saying you can deliver
weapons to embargoed countries as long as you keep the ammunition and
hardware in different shipments.