Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> writes:

>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
>> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
>> GPL-incompatible).
>
> If you want a simply answer, the answer is: "No (insert disclaimers
> here)" as others have pointed out.

As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's
restricted.  There have been some indications that a source
distribution is allowed, even if a binary distribution is not.  Could
someone clarify?

> The rest of the discussion is only appropriate if you want to understand
> why that is.  But it has to do with intent, sneaky ways one might try to
> get around the GPL, how provable your position is in court, and (perhaps
> most importantly) how deep your pockets are.

I use plugins for purely technical reasons.  If, as a side effect,
otherwise incompatible libraries can be used, it's all the better for
the users of the program.

I don't generally trust courts, so I'd rather not end up there.

> GPL works' authors don't generally care specifically about OpenSSL
> either.  But they *don't* want advertisements to accompany their code,
> or any derived work.
>
> So when you get a derived work that contains both of these restrictions,
> it ought to be quite clear that there's no way to meet it.  Since you
> can't, you can't distribute.

Once again, we end up at the words "derived work".  Where should I
look for precise definitions this term?  For the record, I am doing
this work in Sweden and Norway, in case it makes a difference.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se