Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

From: Chris Cannam <cannam@...> · Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 2:55 pm

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dr Nicholas J

Bailey wrote:

quoted text> On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:

>> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a

>>   'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'

>>   version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST

>>   headers.

>

> My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate

> process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK,

> same memory space => derived work.
"Derived work" in the context of the GPL is entirely a question of

copyright.  If two works have been produced completely independently

-- for example if their authors produced them without being aware of

one another's existence at all -- then I don't think there could be

any basis for considering either of them a derived work of the other.

This could routinely be the case for a LADSPA plugin and host, for

example.
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be

GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.

This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a

problem like this would surely have to consider the circumstances of

authorship: is it actually reasonable to describe program A as being

derived from program B, to the extent that the terms of program B's

license must be considered when redistributing program A?  That

consideration would surely vary hugely from case to case.
Chris

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev