On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:22:12AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > Matthew Palmer wrote: > > >> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should > >> reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the > >> latter has a documented API and the former only communicates with > >> it through that API, I'd probably say no. Even more so if that > >> plugin could conceivably work with another, non-GPL'd plugin > >> loader. > > > > It's a tricky issue. Even if the plugin does only communicate via > > the published interface, it is entirely possible that the plugin > > includes copyrighted elements from the plugin loader code itself. > > It'd have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. > > Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable. Under what theory do you come to that conclusion? Note that a .h file can contain more than function prototypes, and function prototypes don't have to be in a .h file. > Which other elements of the plugin loader may be _included_ in the plugin? Macros and inline functions spring immediately to mind, although I don't think inlines normally cross library boundaries. My linker fu is rusty. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature