5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
10:50 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
Consensus seems to be that they need to distribute
code for the
plugins they include, but whether they are allowed to ship the plugins
is another question.
The crazy thing is that if they shipped their host in one package, and
redistributed some LADPSA plugins (with source) in another then they
would not be violating the licence as far as I can see - both actions
are perfectly legitimate in isolation. However, shipping them in one
package might be some sort of violation.
I don't think they're in violation just by including the plugins with
their proprietary application. I think that would most likely come
under the "aggregate" concept in the GPL, which was included to support
GNU/Linux distributions:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
scope of this License."
I think it could reasonably be argued that an automatic installer of
both the (separate) proprietary application and the plugins would
constitute an "aggregate" rather than a "derived work".
I think really, Beat Kangz just need to fall into line with the normal
obligations of a distributor; including a notice about the GPLd
software, an offer to provide the source code, etc. I'd note that this
would just be limited to the aggregate (ie, the installer) as well.
--
Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }