HI Robert, On Dec 1, 2007 11:08 PM, Robert Balfour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a potential license issue with the .net osg plugin?
Potentially yes there could be issues for some usages, the OSG itself is perfectly OK, but use of the plugin will have to be careful to comply, more details below. I must admit I was unaware of this plugin containing GPL'd work. Don Burns wrote the OSG's .net plugin and checked it in, I assumed that it was under the OSGPL as Don was the principle author. FYI, the Xine plugin is also GPL'd as it uses Xine-lib which itself is GPL'd. > In the ReaderWriterNET plugin source directory, the sockstream.cpp > component file has a header comment referencing the GPL license, which > is much more limiting that the OSG LGPL(+relaxed for static linking) > type license? >From my understanding it should be OK for a non GPL'd application to loaded a GPL'd plugin without infringing the license, as the GPL explictly says it covers just copying/distribution, not running of the code. If this wasn't possible then you wouldn't be able to run a GPL'd application under Windows, the relationship between the various elements of code is exactly the same. So if you distribute your app that use a GPL'd plugin you must ensure that your distribution of the plugin is done according to its license. For an end user to be able to excercise their rights granted by the GPL they will need to be able to get the source, and the dependencies and tweak the plugin and rerun you app, this is possible whilst your distribute the OSG as dynamic libs, but not if you statically link it. Static linking of the .net plugin is also breaks the license. However, both these conditions are not difficult to meet. As for the plugin itself it would be nice to rewrite the GPL'd parts to make the plugin an OSGPL'd plugin just to clear up any ambiguity, any volunteers? Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
