5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
1:28 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Sampo Savolainen<v2(a)iki.fi> wrote:
Quoting "Steve Harris"
<steve(a)plugin.org.uk>uk>:
> An update.
>
> I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking
> for retrospective permission, or something along those lines.
I wonder if we have received the same email? The email
I got did not
mention any specific license or even a type of license they would
like. At least I don't think they were asking for the plugins under a
non-GPL license. To me it sounded like they were making a proposal on
how to become compliant with GPL.
Seems like LGPL might have been a better choice, depending on your intentions.
But law is often a matter of interpretation. As copyright holder,
your interpretation is more relevant than that of FSF. (They have no
direct standing in the case.)
Perhaps a simple additional statement that you "permit aggregation and
use with proprietary hosts" would suffice. FSF might not like it, but
it's not their code.
I'm not going to grant it - I don't
really think I can, the "SWH"
plugins represent the work of far too many people for me to feel
comfortable doing that, and it's not necessary anyway, as long as they
stick by whatever the conditions of the licence may be. But, I don't
actually have a clear idea of what the GPL says should happen.
GPL + plugins seems to be a really iffy combination. I myself find the
plugin interface separating the host from the plugins sufficient. The
linkage happens when the user acts to load the plugin. This runtime
linkage is never distributed, distribution being where GPL viral
clauses would kick in. This discussion does raise a good question about which
license LADSPA
and LV2 plugins should use. GPL might just be too viral and too
restrictive.
I don't know. Maybe LGPL or BSD?
> 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 copyright holder is the only one with standing to enforce either
interpretation. You decide.
--
joq