Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:

> Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> writes:
>
>>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
>>> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
>>> GPL-incompatible).
>>
>> If you want a simply answer, the answer is: "No (insert disclaimers
>> here)" as others have pointed out.
>
> As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's
> restricted.

That's not quite what I said, and has a critical difference.  I said
writing *the plugin itself* is allowed.  Writing the combined work of
the framework, the OpenSSL-using-plugin, and the Readline-using-plugin
is not allowed by the GPL.

> There have been some indications that a source distribution is
> allowed, even if a binary distribution is not.  Could someone
> clarify?
>
>> The rest of the discussion is only appropriate if you want to understand
>> why that is.  But it has to do with intent, sneaky ways one might try to
>> get around the GPL, how provable your position is in court, and (perhaps
>> most importantly) how deep your pockets are.
>
> I use plugins for purely technical reasons.  If, as a side effect,
> otherwise incompatible libraries can be used, it's all the better for
> the users of the program.

Ask yourself this: is what you're doing in compliance with the wishes
of the authors of the various pieces of software you're using?  Legal
or not, I think what you're considering doing is impolite.

> I don't generally trust courts, so I'd rather not end up there.
>
>> GPL works' authors don't generally care specifically about OpenSSL
>> either.  But they *don't* want advertisements to accompany their code,
>> or any derived work.
>>
>> So when you get a derived work that contains both of these restrictions,
>> it ought to be quite clear that there's no way to meet it.  Since you
>> can't, you can't distribute.
>
> Once again, we end up at the words "derived work".  Where should I
> look for precise definitions this term?  For the record, I am doing
> this work in Sweden and Norway, in case it makes a difference.

Ask a lawyer specializing in copyright in your jurisdictions.

-Brian