On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harris<[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote: >> >> I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many >> years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host >> with their licence. >> >> There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and >> loadtime linking. > > D'oh. I think I'm confusing the LGPL and the GPL too.
You are, but dynamic linkage with the GPL is a complete minefield as well, because it really hinges on what might be considered a derived work in copyright terms rather than on the content of the GPL. (The FSF has a position that I think is a convenient oversimplification, which is that any dynamic loading forms a derived work. Others disagree -- Linus for example with his binary kernel modules. The GPL does contain a line about applicability "when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program", but it basically seems to be the license ruling itself on whether it applies or not, and I don't think it's the only possible authority for that -- if there is no derived work in pure copyright terms, then it doesn't make any difference what the GPL says about derived works.) Chris _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
