4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
12:45 p.m.
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
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.
- If an installer (run on the end user's machine)
fetches the plugins from their official site, would
this be 'distribution' ?
Ummm... I vote no :)
My first guess would be no, no.
Ciao,