On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:17:25AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > > GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various > > plugins, these are then dlopened when requested. > > > > I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer > > packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn't make your GStreamer > > installation / packages GPL (that is the build process has nothing to > > do with the resulting packages). > > > > I would even thing that installing GStreamer plugins packages which > > link to GPL libraries don't make your installation nor your running > > GStreamer applications GPL (that is only dlopening() something GPL > > makes the whole program in memory GPL, while it remains in memory). > > In a technical sense, you're right, in that each binary retains its > separate copyright status. Most people, however, are concerned about > the restrictions effectively placed on them more than about the specific > status of any particular binary. I think it'd be a stretch to say that this prohibits proprietary gstreamer plugins, but I doubt you could *include* them in a gstreamer distribution. Third-party ones should still be okay. > I see two ways in which this practically effects people using Debian. > One, Debian could decide to package a plugin linking to a free but > GPL-incompatible library, such as OpenSSL. Two, others might want to > add a few proprietary plugins on top of Debian and distribute the > result. So, I'd say that the former is probably prohibited and the latter is probably allowed. Incorporating proprietary plugins into Debian is somewhere around the borderline case, but I can't see that ever being an issue. > This seems worth mentioning in the copyright file, even if the license > itself doesn't change. Yeah, as far as the above goes. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature