On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
Whether you use another GPL library as code, directly compiled in, or linked
to externally makes no difference under the GPL. This is just another case
of where people have not gone to the FSF and read the FAQ page on GPL.
> > And as the software is GPL licensed, the source _has_ to be made
This is true. Not a violation in itself, but it does obscure the situation.
Most projects that use GPL usually make it well-known. You don't
have to, but given the previous actions of these folks it does not
exactly look like they are trying to be above board on the matter.
> Wikipedia states it's GPL as does
It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of
Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in
your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL.
Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it.
> Furthermore, as I said in my previous post: the copyright holders are free
Sure, but again not relevant to the current situation. Can we stick to
the topic, please.
A few days ago I put up a GPL header direct from one of the java files
in Impro-Visor to make it clear that I was certain they were violating
Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more
evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions
using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL
or that violations have occurred.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list