Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Steve Harrisst...@plugin.org.uk wrote: An update. I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking for retrospective permission, or something along those lines. 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. 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. That's slightly mad. I also got mail from the president of BeatKangz. I basically replied that they have two possibilities: (1) abide by the GPL; (2) buy a custom commercial license from me (since I believe I am the copyright holder for all my plugins, I can rightfully do this). Re: the madness surrounding the GPL, I think the dividing line (as per the spirit and not necessarily by the letter of the GPL) is whether the incorporated work (the plugins) form an integral part of the whole. I believe that if the host relies on some plugins for some critical operation (eg. think JAMin) then with all due respect, the virality of the GPL applies. However if the user initiates loading a plugin then it should not enforce any restriction on the host (taint it). I believe our case is an example of the former case. Even so since on their website BeanKangz brags about FX features in their product (integral part) without referencing that they are just standard plugins downloadable from the 'net. Tom ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
An update. I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking for retrospective permission, or something along those lines. 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. 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. That's slightly mad. - Steve ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
Hallo, Steve Harris hat gesagt: // 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. Are they? See below. However, shipping them in one package might be some sort of violation. According to the slightly skewed view of the FSF, even the former could be a violation: If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program. Quotint the GPL-FAQ. However applied to LADSPA this would mean, that GPL-plug-ins are not allowed in commercial software *at all*, and this would also be the case for e.g. Renoise, even when it doesn't ship the plugins, but uses the system-wide installed plugins. So if Beat Kangzs isn't allowed to load swh-plugins, then Renoise wouldn't be allowed neither, as far as I understand it. And Renoise does load them, I just checked. So we'd have another violation alert for Renoise. Happy hunting. :) Ciao -- Frank ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
Quoting Steve Harris st...@plugin.org.uk: An update. I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking for retrospective permission, or something along those lines. Hi, 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. 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. An hard-wired piece of software like Jamin on the other hand would be more tricky. In such a case it might be necessary for the proprietary host to be separately distributed from the plugins. Might. Who knows? 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. 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'm too much of a pragmatic to consider the amount of packages being delivered to be that relevant. It's like saying you can deliver weapons to embargoed countries as long as you keep the ammunition and hardware in different shipments. By that slightly limping analog I'm trying to say that they can distribute the plugins with their program and still be compatible in what I see as fair use of my open source. As long as they clearly point this out and release any modifications they do to the GPL'd code, naturally. In fact, I just scoured the .jars of a fairly popular proprietary Java application server and I found at least one piece of GPL licensed software in there. The company who makes this server is very open source friendly: they have released a lot of their code as open source projects and they are very active in developing these and other free software projects. They feel comfortable enough distributing GPL'd code within their proprietary server, and I'm pretty sure they have asked their lawyers. The company is/was BEA Systems. That's slightly mad. These licenses are s tricky. No wonder so many people release their free software free of charge and without a license in sight :) Sampo ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
On 5 Aug 2009, at 11:49, Sampo Savolainen wrote: Quoting Steve Harris st...@plugin.org.uk: An update. I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking for retrospective permission, or something along those lines. Hi, 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. That's right, it didn't mention licences. 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. I agree. An hard-wired piece of software like Jamin on the other hand would be more tricky. In such a case it might be necessary for the proprietary host to be separately distributed from the plugins. Might. Who knows? 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. At the least it seems like a specific mention that it's OK to load the plugins into a proprietary host (if that's what you intend) is a good idea. 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'm too much of a pragmatic to consider the amount of packages being delivered to be that relevant. It's like saying you can deliver weapons to embargoed countries as long as you keep the ammunition and hardware in different shipments. Agreed. - Steve ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
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 r...@bash.sh
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Sampo Savolainenv...@iki.fi wrote: Quoting Steve Harris st...@plugin.org.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. 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. 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. 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 ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
2009/8/5 Frank Barknecht f...@footils.org: Quotint the GPL-FAQ. However applied to LADSPA this would mean, that GPL-plug-ins are not allowed in commercial software *at all*, That's been *my* understanding of the GPL too: It just doesn't want GPL'd software to be used by proprietary software in any way. That's why LGPL was introduced: to be used in circumstances, where pure GPL is too coercive. I've been surprised, that some (most ?) plugins were using the GPL, but thought it was intentional, that authors wouldn't want non-free-software to use LADSPA etc. If they (you) would like to allow non-FLOSS to use the plugins, rather use the LGPL, I think. -- e.r. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
