Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a >> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for >> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything >> GPL-incompatible). > > If you want a simply answer, the answer is: "No (insert disclaimers > here)" as others have pointed out.
As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's restricted. There have been some indications that a source distribution is allowed, even if a binary distribution is not. Could someone clarify? > The rest of the discussion is only appropriate if you want to understand > why that is. But it has to do with intent, sneaky ways one might try to > get around the GPL, how provable your position is in court, and (perhaps > most importantly) how deep your pockets are. I use plugins for purely technical reasons. If, as a side effect, otherwise incompatible libraries can be used, it's all the better for the users of the program. I don't generally trust courts, so I'd rather not end up there. > GPL works' authors don't generally care specifically about OpenSSL > either. But they *don't* want advertisements to accompany their code, > or any derived work. > > So when you get a derived work that contains both of these restrictions, > it ought to be quite clear that there's no way to meet it. Since you > can't, you can't distribute. Once again, we end up at the words "derived work". Where should I look for precise definitions this term? For the record, I am doing this work in Sweden and Norway, in case it makes a difference. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
