Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård)]

Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:

> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:
>> > The package is the result of collection and
>> > assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
>> > reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
>> > of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that the
>> > _compilation_ must be original, not its parts.
>> 
>> I think I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not convinced I entirely
>> undersstand where you're going with this.
>
> The original issue, as far as I understood is, was whether it
> is allowed to bundle a GPL-licensed plugin with a host program
> under a GPL-incompatible license. Or actually, a host that
> also uses a second plugin which is under a GPL-incompatible license,
> but that shouldn't make a difference.

In my opinion, there is a difference.  In the two plugins case, you
don't need to use them at the same time.

> The host and the plugin can obviously be distributed separately
> as they are original works created by different people.

What if they have the same author?  If the GPL tries to make
restrictions on what independent works users of GPL'd software can
create, I would definitely not call it a free license.  Would such a
restriction even be valid under copyright law (or whatever law
applies)?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se