4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
5:23 p.m.
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
My _user_? That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
is obviously absurd.
Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones
making the violation. You have to give special permission to do this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.
Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license
used.
For example:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
GPL) software.
Comments?
Sampo
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd. In real life, a court faced with a
No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.