4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
3:39 p.m.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me.
Not one that I'd ever really considered. It doesn't seem all that
plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?
Yes, I think that it is widely accepted that this is a _really_ murky
area. :-)
In the case of *users*... I stand corrected. Sorry for the noise.
(Ralf: thanks for the challenge.)
WRT the OP, here's a couple of more relevent sections from the GPL FAQ...
and even concedes the "murky" part....
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
-and-
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper
In the case of the OP, the problem is that they were distributed
together... as a whole. They at least have to honor the GPL requirements
for distributing the plugin binaries. As for GPL-tainting the whole
program, it has to be determined if they are interfaced "at arm's length."
<opinionating_the_murk>
Since we all know that LADSPA is a protocal that causes dynamic linking to
object code, it seems clear that this is *not* at arms length. But, I can
see room for argument that LADSPA is an intermediate protocol (like
text-based I/O, TCP/IP communication, morse code)... and that this makes
it arms length. So, I'm now back where we started. :-P
</opinionating_the_murk>
Peace,
Gabriel