-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Dr Nicholas J Bailey wrote: > On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 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. > > My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a > separate process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be > separate. But AFAIK, same memory space => derived work.
i guess your understanding is correct. in a past thread (feb. 2004) on the piksel list regarding licensing of video plugins, i've asked the FSF regarding this issue and got this reply: "Legally speaking, there's never been a case which discussed this. FSF believes that dlopen operates the same way as compile-time linking." Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer ciao - -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp8K/wACgkQe2QxhLU0C152dACgpcieOzJcSM79DKwZ4jDamK28 sQ0An14n5WVLQ1fthbvaaGeq3DUIVdr8 =Xdi6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev