** 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. -- HTH, Massa