On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote: > >>> > >>> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be > >>> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL. > >>> This would obviously be absurd. In real life, a court faced with a > >> > >> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would. > > > > My _user_? That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution. > > Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work", > > implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of > > that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which > > is obviously absurd. > > > > Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones > making the violation. You have to give special permission to do this: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation. Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license used. For example: I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non GPL) software. Comments? Sampo _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
