21 Apr
2004
21 Apr
'04
5:21 p.m.
On Wednesday 21 Apr 2004 7:40 pm, Paul Davis wrote:
I think so too, at least for the case of redistributing libfst.so
itself.
Am I completely
misreading the thing? To me, the spirit of the
GPL would seem to support that interpretation, i.e. that your
source code offer must include everything that a normal person
would otherwise lack in order to build your program.
I believe we can work around this by adding an exception to the
license associated with FST. Imagine there is a GPL'ed (or LGPL'ed) library
that my app uses but
its not part of the system. I do not have to distribute the source
to that library as part of my application. I can simply point you
at the distribution for the library itself. I can tell you "to
compile this application, you will need libfoo" - this is common
practice for all GPL'ed applications.
Well, I think strictly speaking this is not true -- I think you would
indeed have to offer source for the library if asked. I think it's
just such common practice when referring to other GPL code that
everyone accepts it anyway, and since everyone's happy with the
arrangement, there's no problem. But I could be totally mistaken.
Also the "system library" provision can be pretty broad -- I remember
the arguments over whether you could GPL code that used Motif, and I
don't recall anyone getting in any more than theoretical trouble for
doing so. These days you can probably get away with everything that
comes on the SuSE DVDs.
[...] I
think it should be OK to release FST with a license that says "you
will need these files from Steinberg".
The tricky part of this is that "these files" are not GPL'ed
And don't forget neither is FST, in this scenario, because it has that
exception in its licence, necessary to make it distributable as a
library at all. So I imagine any program that uses it will need the
same exception. In effect the situation for any other GPL program is
just the same as it is for FST itself.
I take Rosegarden, and add VST-with-FST support to
it.
The current GPL license for Rosegarden *I think* prevents me from
doing this, because I am aggregating your work with a non-GPL'ed
work to which I cannot provide the source.
Right.
You would have to add a
clause to the license of Rosegarden noting that linkage/aggregation
with non-GPL'ed code for the purpose of running VST plugins blah
blah blah.
Right, I agree so far. Unfortunately my brain really starts to melt
when I try to consider how this interacts with other GPL libraries
that Rosegarden also uses, such as the KDE ones. I suspect it means
that I can't strictly provide that exception because it would make my
licence incompatible with the KDE one. Not that the KDE guys should
be too bothered, given that for some years they distributed their
libraries with a dependency on Qt but an incompatible licence to it.
Brrr.
Chris