On 5 Aug 2009, at 11:49, Sampo Savolainen wrote: > Quoting "Steve Harris" <[email protected]>: > >> An update. >> >> I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking >> for retrospective permission, or something along those lines. > > Hi, > > I wonder if we have received the same email? The email I got did not > mention any specific license or even a type of license they would > like. At least I don't think they were asking for the plugins under a > non-GPL license. To me it sounded like they were making a proposal on > how to become compliant with GPL.
That's right, it didn't mention licences. >> I'm not going to grant it - I don't really think I can, the "SWH" >> plugins represent the work of far too many people for me to feel >> comfortable doing that, and it's not necessary anyway, as long as >> they >> stick by whatever the conditions of the licence may be. But, I don't >> actually have a clear idea of what the GPL says should happen. > > GPL + plugins seems to be a really iffy combination. I myself find the > plugin interface separating the host from the plugins sufficient. The > linkage happens when the user acts to load the plugin. This runtime > linkage is never distributed, distribution being where GPL viral > clauses would kick in. I agree. > An hard-wired piece of software like Jamin on the other hand would be > more tricky. In such a case it might be necessary for the proprietary > host to be separately distributed from the plugins. Might. Who knows? > > This discussion does raise a good question about which license LADSPA > and LV2 plugins should use. GPL might just be too viral and too > restrictive. At the least it seems like a specific mention that it's OK to load the plugins into a proprietary host (if that's what you intend) is a good idea. >> 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. However, shipping them in one >> package might be some sort of violation. > > I'm too much of a pragmatic to consider the amount of packages being > delivered to be that relevant. It's like saying you can deliver > weapons to embargoed countries as long as you keep the ammunition and > hardware in different shipments. Agreed. - Steve _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
