On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes: > > No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugin+program does. > > The derived work will never be distributed, and is thus permitted by > the above paragraph. We're obviously talking about distribution, as the GPL doesn't deign to cover use and private modification. >> Yes, assuming one of those implementation's licenses is compatible >> with the plugin, > > What does it matter how other implementations are licensed? Presumably, you could then claim to be distributing the work GPL compliant work+GPL-plugin; and a set of non-GPL compliant works that just happen to also be able to use the plugin. [Although, it's possible that someone could claim that you were just doing this to evade the terms of the GPL...] > What about source distributions? Is it allowed to distribute source > code licensed under the X11 license that uses a GPL'd library? Sure, because X11 is a GPL compliant license. If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant, the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most libraries, save ones with well defined interfaces, like POSIX or the STD C. But I could be swayed either way, frankly. It's much easier to judge these things when you're looking at the code, and even then it's still quite possible that you could find enough of an issue to enter litigation. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature