On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:02 +0100, 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. However, shipping them in one > package might be some sort of violation.
I don't think they're in violation just by including the plugins with their proprietary application. I think that would most likely come under the "aggregate" concept in the GPL, which was included to support GNU/Linux distributions: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." I think it could reasonably be argued that an automatic installer of both the (separate) proprietary application and the plugins would constitute an "aggregate" rather than a "derived work". I think really, Beat Kangz just need to fall into line with the normal obligations of a distributor; including a notice about the GPLd software, an offer to provide the source code, etc. I'd note that this would just be limited to the aggregate (ie, the installer) as well. -- Bob Ham <[email protected]> for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
