4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
6:32 a.m.
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 09:33:22 Nick Bailey wrote:
On Monday 03 Aug 2009 21:29:48 Michael Fisher wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make
your changes available for free.
So if they just use the plugins without any modification, they don't actually
have to provide source codes. They just need to mention that they provide
plugins that are gpl.
I don't even think that using gpl-ladspa-plugins makes their software gpl
because the linking happens at run-time (if at all). And if the plugins are
lgpl they can even link their closed-source stuff to them. But here people with
more knowledge should chime in.
Arnold
No problem. It's not really fair to put a
'skin' around free software,
call it your own, and then sell it. The only thing I ask is that my
name be left out of the letter that may be written to them. The reason
is, that I personally know one of the staff members at the Beat Kangz. I
just would hate to have it cause any trouble. My friend personally
doesn't have anything to do with this violation, he just works for
them. I hope that isn't a problem with you.
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.