Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

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

mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:

> bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) 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.
>
> If that's the case, we should put the entire KDE development team in
> jail.  KDE is licensed under GPL, and uses both GPL stuff and OpenSSL.
> It also uses Java and Netscape plugins, which are very much non-free.

Why would we put them in jail?  They haven't done anything criminal.

KDE is also manifestly not a single work: I use konquerer but no other
part of it, for example.  The KDE folks have, from what I've seen,
been quite careful with licensing issues.  Can you provide any
specific examples of single works incorporating pure-GPL work and
linking against OpenSSL?

>>>> 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?
>
> I don't know what the authors wish, I'll have to ask them.

They've told you in the license.  You can ask for a new, broader
license, but remember in the case of GPL'd works that this requires
permission from *all* the authors.

-Brian