Re: Question regarding QPLed plugins for a GPLed app

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>

> I believe (and check this list archive about problems concerning QPLed emacs
> .el files) that the point here is if the QPLed code sole intention is to be
> linked with a GPLed work, and it cannot be used with another program (cannot
> or has not), then even if it is the final user who does the linking, it is
> considered a derivative work.

It may well be that the FSF thinks that it is a derivative work in
this case, but I don't think the law necessarily agrees with the FSF
here. In particular, I think the FSF's use of exec versus dynamic
linking as the primary metric distinguising between derived and
non-derived is pulled out of the air without any sustainable legal
theory behind it.

Of course, it might still be wise for Debian to err on the side of
caution and treat is as derived, at least until we get the primary
authors of the GPL'ed work to say explicitly that they would not
themselves claim that it is derived from their work.

-- 
Henning Makholm              "Y'know, I don't want to seem like one of those
                         hackneyed Jews that you see in heartwarming movies.
                     But at times like this, all I can say is 'Oy, gevalt!'"