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

From: Sampo Savolainen <v2@...> · Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 7:23 pm

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:

quoted text> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:

> >>>

> >>> 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

> >>

> >> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.

> >

> > My _user_?  That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.

> > Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",

> > implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of

> > that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which

> > is obviously absurd.

> >

>

> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones

> making the violation.  You have to give special permission to do this:

>

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.

Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license

used.
For example:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my

proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A

violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non

GPL) software.
Comments? 
 Sampo
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

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