On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:49:22PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote: > I received the following response, claiming that dlopened plugins do not > need to be GPL-compatible: > > > > Given that the QPL is GPL-incompatible, this raises issues for GPLed > > > programs that wish to use this kpart. I believe this at least > > > includes quanta and kdevelop (unless I'm mistaken). > > > > kparts are loaded at runtime. It has always been understood in the Just like dynamic libraries. Funny that. > > community that the license restrictions based on copyright law do not Which community? The KDE community? Perhaps. The wider free software community appears to be somewhat divided on the matter. The FSF certainly seems to lean toward the opposite interpretation in a lot of cases. > > apply to runtime components. The implications of reinterpreting USC 17 > > this way are profound. The effects on Java development alone would be > > catastrophic. This sounds like unfounded assertion to me, quite deeply in the FUD category. > > It is somewhat understood that a deliberate misuse of runtime components > > to circumvent copyrights is not allowed, but this is certainly NOT the I don't recall having seen much related to intent in copyright law, nor in free software licences. "You can do this if you don't mean to" seems a bit silly to put in a licence. > > case for quanta and kdevelop (you also forgot konqueror). These > > applications are designed to load available runtime components solely > > on the basis of the services made available. "Follow the derivatives" is my advice. Look at which works exist in the form they do due to the influence of another copyrightable work. If the API between a kpart and the applications that use them, then it is entirely possible that no derivation exists, and so no licence compatibility need exist. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with RPC mechanisms, or with how KDE does it's work, so I don't have much specific advice to offer. > > There is no copyright violation occuring when a user loads a plugin at > > runtime, particularly one with a generic interface like a kpart. They're right about that -- no violation occurs when the user loads a plugin. However, *distributing* a plugin which is a derivative of a GPL'd work without complying with the GPL is a problem. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature