linuxaudio.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Dr Nicholas J Bailey wrote:

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

> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:

> > > Well, calling it  your own is out of order, but  as long as they

> > > release their source  code as required by the  GPL, then selling

> > > it is a Good Thing (TM). I  hope the LADs agree with me. I would

> > > certainly be  delighted if my GPL'd stuff  (which isn't directly

> > > related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd applications.

> >

> > Two question arise:

> >

> > - 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.

i guess your understanding is correct.
in a past thread (feb. 2004) on the piksel list regarding licensing of

video plugins,  i've asked the FSF  regarding this issue  and got this

reply:
  "Legally  speaking,  there's  never  been  a  case  which  discussed

   this.  FSF   believes  that  dlopen   operates  the  same   way  as

   compile-time linking."  Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer
ciao
- -- 
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112  64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp8K/wACgkQe2QxhLU0C152dACgpcieOzJcSM79DKwZ4jDamK28

sQ0An14n5WVLQ1fthbvaaGeq3DUIVdr8

=Xdi6

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

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