21 Jun
2010
21 Jun
'10
10:43 p.m.
That's easy to answer: it's usable producing a file as output. It
won't have means to play this file, for which it uses the plugin.
It could potentially use different plugins of the same architecture to
do the same thing. In fact, that's what is being done:
the non-free plugin gets the boot and a free one is used instead.
I guess this is not a decision for me. I can say what I will do,
explain the caveats and provide the software, if the customer agrees
to have it like that.
I think I have enough information now to pass on to whoever needs to
decide.
Thanks everyone for your responses.
Victor
On 21 Jun 2010, at 21:28, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Victor Lazzarini
<Victor.Lazzarini(a)nuim.ie> wrote:
I am not expecting legal advice. I am a developer
too, working
exclusively
with Free software; I was never in a situation where I had to check
closely
the GPL license, but I expect that someone here might have had
previous
experience.
victor, i think that the real issue here is the extent to which the
host is completely usable without either version of the plugin. the
fact that there is a nonfree version of the plugin definitely
complicates matters though.