On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 22:45, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > 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. Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the following, in chronological order: 1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API. I release my program under the MIT X11 license. 2. Weston Manning (a new maintiner) uploads Anthony's Foo Editor as afe. 3. Marc Spencer creates a plugin, Frobit, under the OpenSSL license 4. Weston Manning uploads afe-frobit 5. Duncan Finch creates a plugin, Barnitz, under the GPL, version 2 6. Weston Manning uploads afe-barnitz While performing this excercize, please keep in mind the following, from Title 17 USC Sec. 101: "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works." Namely, I can NOT create a derivative work of a work that does not yet exist. Now, we know from the definition of a derivative work (above) that 1--4 can not be derivative works of 5 or 6. So, could someone please tell me, where exactly is the GPL violation?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part