21 Jun
2010
21 Jun
'10
1:50 p.m.
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 06:40 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 09:24:19.0886 (UTC)
FILETIME=[82F1D4E0:01CA15AE]
http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=Re%3A+[LAD]+GPL+Violation+A…on+Alert!
+-+update&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=605bfc997273a220
A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into
non-free hosts?
This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code
can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules?
This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be
worthwhile searching the archives. (Yes, I know that
searching LAD takes perseverence. :-)) According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because
it's
dynamic linking. BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is
more black-and-white today than it was last year.
However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins?? To
allow this sort of thing? So, I think the FSF's opinion is
still up for debate. In addition, I doubt most plugin
authors will get upset with someone doing this.
Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special
permission for this (see, for example [2]).
Chris is also right: This is not an end-user issue. This
is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor
issue.
-gabriel
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
[2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html
Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception
for hosts, and again waaaay at the end where it mentions
the FSF.