On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 06:40 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > > > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? > > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code > > can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? > > This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be > worthwhile searching the archives. (Yes, I know that > searching LAD takes perseverence. :-))
Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 09:24:19.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[82F1D4E0:01CA15AE] http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=Re%3A+[LAD]+GPL+Violation+Alert! +-+update&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=605bfc997273a220 > According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because it's > dynamic linking. BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is > more black-and-white today than it was last year. > > However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins?? To > allow this sort of thing? So, I think the FSF's opinion is > still up for debate. In addition, I doubt most plugin > authors will get upset with someone doing this. > > Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special > permission for this (see, for example [2]). > > Chris is also right: This is not an end-user issue. This > is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor > issue. > > -gabriel > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins > [2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html > Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception > for hosts, and again waaaay at the end where it mentions > the FSF. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
