On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 16:22 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote: > James "Doc" Livingston wrote: > > So this again brings up the three important questions: > > 1) Do we want to change the licencing to something more permissive? > > 2) If we want to, is is practical? > > 3) If we are, what should it be re-licenced to? > > Isn't it possible to fake out something like "gstreamer plugins link > against gstreamer, not rhythmbox" ?
The exact legal reasoning of how plugin licences interact with application licences, and why, is something I don't really understand. Which is why lawyers exist. Rhythmbox *might* be linked to the MP3 decoder, depending on what audio files the user has, whether they've done anything like installed or remove any plugins or fiddled with priorities, and what they do in Rhythmbox. Another legal question is what changes if Rhythmbox is using the MP3 plugin at the same time as it is using a GPL'd plugin. For example both audio cd source plugins (cdparanoiasrc and cdiosrc) are effectively GPL'd because they underlying libraries they use are (although the plugin code itself isn't). My personal position on those questions is "Ow, my brain hurts". Cheers, James "Doc" Livingston -- 'If I ever saw an animated penguin with a speech bubble saying, "It looks like you're trying to edit fstab", I'd switch to BSD faster than a speeding Gentoo user.' -- Paul Hudson _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
