On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote: > > > Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release > > their > > source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I > > hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my GPL'd > > stuff > > (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd > > applications. > > Two question arise: > > - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a > 'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean' > version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST > headers.
GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space and call each other / share data, etc: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF However, you can add a license restriction to avoid this for a particular interface (e.g. the LADSPA API): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface Either way, the user can't "violate the GPL" just by loading a plugin (since the GPL is a copyright license). Distributing such a combination in any way would, though. Cheers, -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev