On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:50:50AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes: > > >> I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of > >> plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of > >> these plugins are linked with third-party libraries. The licenses of > >> those libraries vary, including at least GPL, LGPL and X11. Now I'm > >> trying to work out what choices of license for my program would allow > >> distribution of binaries, and also what would be DFSG-free. I'd > >> appreciate some comments about these matters. > > > > If you choose any of those licenses (GPL, LGPL, X11), you should be > > fine. There is no problem using those plugins with your program. So > > the question comes down to which one you prefer for your own work. > > OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed > source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has > installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately, > right? When the user runs the program, it will load both plugins. > Would this in some magical way make the plugins derived works of each > other, thus violating the GPL? No. But a vendor could get into trouble if they shipped both. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature