[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

** Loïc Minier ::

>         Hi,
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > >From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and 
> modification are not
> > > covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act
> > > of running the Program is not restricted...
> > So the particular details of how things are distributed in
> > memory while running aren't directly relevant.  Modification and
> > distribution are what matters, and it's clear from looking at
> > the packages that GStreamer is distributed in Debian in
> > conjunction with GPLed bits in a manner that's more than "mere
> > aggregation".
>  I'm not sure to understand: you mean that since some LGPL
>  GStreamer plugins are shipped in Debian along with GPL packages
>  and they can play together means that the whole is GPLed?
>  Would it be ok to have a copyright file along these lines:
>  "The source code for all plugins in the GStreamer Plugins source
>  package is licensed under the LGPL, however some plugins are
>  built with the help of header files from GPL libraries, and will
>  be linked to GPL libraries when loaded in memory.  Thus, using
>  these plugins will switch their license to GPL, and you can only
>  use them in applications with a license compatible with the GPL.
>  You should have received a copy of the GPL and LGPL licenses ..."
>  Is a list of plugins necessary?  I guess it's up to the
>  interested person to check, nowadays it's relatively easy with
>  tags and Debian's "copyright" files, and I don't want to maintain
>  such a list.

I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work
that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are
(dynamically) linked at run time, especially combined with the fact
that the plugins are opened with dlopen() and use stable API, is
*more* than enough to lift any (inexistent IMHO) "no-link"
requirement of the GPL.

Please don't do that.


Reply to: