On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote: > > Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release > > their source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing > > (TM). I hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my > > GPL'd stuff (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean > > more GPL'd applications. > > Two question arise: > > - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a > 'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean' > version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST > headers.
My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK, same memory space => derived work. > > - If an installer (run on the end user's machine) > fetches the plugins from their official site, would > this be 'distribution' ? Ummm... I vote no :) > > > My first guess would be no, no. > > > Ciao, _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
