Hallo, Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote: > Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann: > > >although i don't really like this clause, the following description is > >quite clear: > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF > > I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if > there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd > plugins.
You could always "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." [1] I always assumed, that flext had such a clause, as obviously it is intended to be used with the non-free Max/MSP as well. > I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is > odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different > license. Idealism gone. Why is it odd, that the GPL does not permit linking GPL-binaries with closed-source programs as default? I think, it was one of the motivations of Stallman to make a clear cut between non-free and free software, because his original goal was to develop "a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free." [1] (If all that is a good idea, is another discussion, of course.) [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF [2] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
