[LAD] GPL and plugins

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Mon Jun 21 11:50:42 UTC 2010


On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 06:40 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
> 
> > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts?
> > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code 
> > can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules?
> 
> This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be 
> worthwhile searching the archives.  (Yes, I know that 
> searching LAD takes perseverence. :-))

Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 09:24:19.0886 (UTC)
FILETIME=[82F1D4E0:01CA15AE]

http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=Re%3A+[LAD]+GPL+Violation+Alert!
+-+update&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=605bfc997273a220

> According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because it's 
> dynamic linking.  BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is 
> more black-and-white today than it was last year.
> 
> However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins??  To 
> allow this sort of thing?  So, I think the FSF's opinion is 
> still up for debate.  In addition, I doubt most plugin 
> authors will get upset with someone doing this.
> 
> Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special 
> permission for this (see, for example [2]).
> 
> Chris is also right:  This is not an end-user issue.  This 
> is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor 
> issue.
> 
> -gabriel
> 
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
> [2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html
>      Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception
>      for hosts, and again waaaay at the end where it mentions
>      the FSF.





More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list