On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote: > > effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me. > Not one that I'd ever really considered. It doesn't seem all that > plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?
Yes, I think that it is widely accepted that this is a _really_ murky area. :-) In the case of *users*... I stand corrected. Sorry for the noise. (Ralf: thanks for the challenge.) WRT the OP, here's a couple of more relevent sections from the GPL FAQ... and even concedes the "murky" part.... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem -and- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper In the case of the OP, the problem is that they were distributed together... as a whole. They at least have to honor the GPL requirements for distributing the plugin binaries. As for GPL-tainting the whole program, it has to be determined if they are interfaced "at arm's length." <opinionating_the_murk> Since we all know that LADSPA is a protocal that causes dynamic linking to object code, it seems clear that this is *not* at arms length. But, I can see room for argument that LADSPA is an intermediate protocol (like text-based I/O, TCP/IP communication, morse code)... and that this makes it arms length. So, I'm now back where we started. :-P </opinionating_the_murk> Peace, Gabriel _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
