Hallo, Steve Harris hat gesagt: // Steve Harris wrote: > Consensus seems to be that they need to distribute code for the > plugins they include, but whether they are allowed to ship the plugins > is another question. > > The crazy thing is that if they shipped their host in one package, and > redistributed some LADPSA plugins (with source) in another then they > would not be violating the licence as far as I can see - both actions > are perfectly legitimate in isolation.
Are they? See below. > However, shipping them in one > package might be some sort of violation. According to the slightly skewed view of the FSF, even the former could be a violation: If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program. Quotint the GPL-FAQ. However applied to LADSPA this would mean, that GPL-plug-ins are not allowed in commercial software *at all*, and this would also be the case for e.g. Renoise, even when it doesn't ship the plugins, but uses the system-wide installed plugins. So if Beat Kangzs isn't allowed to load swh-plugins, then Renoise wouldn't be allowed neither, as far as I understand it. And Renoise does load them, I just checked. So we'd have another violation alert for Renoise. Happy hunting. :) Ciao -- Frank _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
