[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian



bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) 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.
>
> That's not quite what I said, and has a critical difference.  I said
> writing *the plugin itself* is allowed.  Writing the combined work of
> the framework, the OpenSSL-using-plugin, and the Readline-using-plugin
> is not allowed by the GPL.

If that's the case, we should put the entire KDE development team in
jail.  KDE is licensed under GPL, and uses both GPL stuff and OpenSSL.
It also uses Java and Netscape plugins, which are very much non-free.

>>> 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.
>
> Ask yourself this: is what you're doing in compliance with the wishes
> of the authors of the various pieces of software you're using?

I don't know what the authors wish, I'll have to ask them.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se



Reply to: