Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Monday 21 June 2010 22:10:23 Paul Davis wrote: > and even if they did this, if their host was the only application that > used the API, the burden of guilt would fall heavily upon them in any > court (legal or public opinion). Just fund the development of a simple app that used the api and gpl the thing. drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > Then there is the situation where you write a plugin using VST (and its > non-free license) and GPL. GPL should 'contaminate' the plugin making it > Free, but then Steinberg will come back at you for breaking its license. > Surely if you use GPL code, then you need to publish your header files too. > > Sorry, I did not mean to make this discussion longer than it needs to be, > but... I think that situation is simpler, and is just as you surmise -- you can't redistribute a plugin that claims to be under the GPL if it uses the VST SDK headers. There _are_ some VST plugins out there that use the SDK but claim to be under the GPL, and I think that is really borne of frustration with the current impossibility of "doing it properly" because of the restrictive license for the SDK headers (most painfully, the SDK license's reverse-engineering clause effectively forbids publishing source for a plugin that _doesn't_ use the SDK, if you have already accepted the SDK license). So I expect the view is that, so long as nobody with a stake in the software objects to it, then at least the license has described what the plugin's author would like to happen in an ideal world. It's a grey-market situation. You wouldn't be able to include such a plugin in a typical Linux distribution. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > i think, in fact, i ADAMANTLY > believe that run-time linking of an object module as a result of > explicit user action (i.e. not part of the predestined lifetime of the > process) is semantically distinct from dynamic linking. put another > way, if you cannot look at the executable and determine that it will > link a particular object module during its lifetime, it is very, very > hard for me to see how the plugin can be considered a derivative work > of the host (assuming the APIs are not host specific etc etc etc). Exactly my view as well. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Then there is the situation where you write a plugin using VST (and its non-free license) and GPL. GPL should 'contaminate' the plugin making it Free, but then Steinberg will come back at you for breaking its license. Surely if you use GPL code, then you need to publish your header files too. Sorry, I did not mean to make this discussion longer than it needs to be, but... Victor On 22 Jun 2010, at 03:10, Paul Davis wrote: I believe that the FSF has never written a version of the GPL that really addresses this, which is why they need to say things like "We believe ..." in the FAQ. 10 years ago, this was a hot topic for them, and they've utterly failed to address it with any concrete changes to the GPL. This may be their intent, but its certainly not mine, and its not the intent of quite a few other people who develop under the GPL either. The idea that because a particular host can load my plugin, my plugin becomes a derivate work of that host is frankly just absurd. Which license would a VST plugin fall under, given that it can be loaded into Ardour, Cubase, Sonar or Samplitude? Which host is it a derivative of? If I write a GPL'ed VST plugin (they do exist), at what point does the run time linkage change the licensing of either the plugin or a host that loads it? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Albert Graef wrote: > Paul Davis wrote: >> If [ ... ] ***WE BELIEVE*** they form a single program, which must be >> treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. > > Well, this is a FAQ, not expert legal opinion. But according to the FSF > the intent of the license is that if A and B are linked together in the > same program (no matter how that happens, static or dynamic linking, > dlopen etc.) and B is GPL'ed then the combination A+B becomes a > "derivative work" and is thus subject to the terms of the GPL. the FSF has consistently tried to blur the line between "dynamic linking" and "run time linking" because they involve similar mechanisms from an OS perspective. but i think, in fact, i ADAMANTLY believe that run-time linking of an object module as a result of explicit user action (i.e. not part of the predestined lifetime of the process) is semantically distinct from dynamic linking. put another way, if you cannot look at the executable and determine that it will link a particular object module during its lifetime, it is very, very hard for me to see how the plugin can be considered a derivative work of the host (assuming the APIs are not host specific etc etc etc). if the host will run and function normally whether or not the plugin is present, its very hard to see how the host can be a derivative of the plugin. the FSF's position makes perfect sense to me when applied to dynamic linking - that is, the set of relationships set up between the executable file and software libraries during building the software, but accomplished without copying object code into the executable file as would happen during static linkage. however, it makes no sense, or at best, is much too ambiguous and confusing, in the case of run-time user-initiated linking of object modules. > At least that's how I read the GPL FAQ. YMMV, but from what I've read in > various discussions, e.g. at license-disc...@opensource.org, I believe > that this interpretation is right, or at least the one intended by the > FSF. The FSF seems to speak with more than one voice on this particular issue. >No idea whether this would stand up in court. In any case, as a > vendor who wants to distribute such a combination, I would either ask > the authors for explicit permission or seek legal advice. > >> i don't believe that this is really the same thing. yes, this >> definitely the point of releasing a library under the GPL. but >> libraries are not plugins. > > No, but if your plugin is provided in the form of a dynamically loadable > module, then according to the FSF it's to be treated just like a library > linked into your program. It doesn't matter whether the linking happens > at compile time or at run time. I believe that the FSF has never written a version of the GPL that really addresses this, which is why they need to say things like "We believe ..." in the FAQ. 10 years ago, this was a hot topic for them, and they've utterly failed to address it with any concrete changes to the GPL. This may be their intent, but its certainly not mine, and its not the intent of quite a few other people who develop under the GPL either. The idea that because a particular host can load my plugin, my plugin becomes a derivate work of that host is frankly just absurd. Which license would a VST plugin fall under, given that it can be loaded into Ardour, Cubase, Sonar or Samplitude? Which host is it a derivative of? If I write a GPL'ed VST plugin (they do exist), at what point does the run time linkage change the licensing of either the plugin or a host that loads it? > Otherwise a commercial vendor could just turn GPL'ed libraries into > "plugins" and happily sell its non-free programs using those. That's > surely not the intent of the GPL. The only way that "my view" of the GPL and plugins could permit this would be for the commercial vendor to: a) define an API that was independent of their "host" application b) make the host support that API c) port the libraries so that the only calls made by the host were part of the API (i.e. the actual library API could not be used) and even if they did this, if their host was the only application that used the API, the burden of guilt would fall heavily upon them in any court (legal or public opinion). ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Luis Garrido wrote: > Ok, again this is my personal, legally unqualified opinion, but it > would seem then that the LGPL might be perhaps the solution for your > case. Yes, but if Victor uses a GPL'd library for his plugin then the combination of the plugin and the library would still be GPL'd. So that doesn't make a difference in this case. Unless he can find an LGPL'd replacement for the library, too. -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: dr.gr...@t-online.de, a...@muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW:http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Paul Davis wrote: > If [ ... ] ***WE BELIEVE*** they form a single program, which must be > treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. Well, this is a FAQ, not expert legal opinion. But according to the FSF the intent of the license is that if A and B are linked together in the same program (no matter how that happens, static or dynamic linking, dlopen etc.) and B is GPL'ed then the combination A+B becomes a "derivative work" and is thus subject to the terms of the GPL. At least that's how I read the GPL FAQ. YMMV, but from what I've read in various discussions, e.g. at license-disc...@opensource.org, I believe that this interpretation is right, or at least the one intended by the FSF. No idea whether this would stand up in court. In any case, as a vendor who wants to distribute such a combination, I would either ask the authors for explicit permission or seek legal advice. > i don't believe that this is really the same thing. yes, this > definitely the point of releasing a library under the GPL. but > libraries are not plugins. No, but if your plugin is provided in the form of a dynamically loadable module, then according to the FSF it's to be treated just like a library linked into your program. It doesn't matter whether the linking happens at compile time or at run time. Otherwise a commercial vendor could just turn GPL'ed libraries into "plugins" and happily sell its non-free programs using those. That's surely not the intent of the GPL. Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: dr.gr...@t-online.de, a...@muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW:http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > The plugin is just a Free software plugin, that is GPL, distributed in > binary form and source code etc. It is written as a plugin, so it can be > used by any host of the same API. The host will load this plugin instead of > the proprietary non-free plugin that it replaces. The plugin is made > available separately, but is also bundled with the host, which loads it > automatically. > > My reasons for asking this are that I was asked to write such a plugin and > i) I don't normally do proprietary software; ii) I don't like to reinvent > the wheel. If I can't provide a free solution, I may as well not take the > job. > Ok, again this is my personal, legally unqualified opinion, but it would seem then that the LGPL might be perhaps the solution for your case. Your plugin is still free software, open source, but the licensee is allowed to link proprietary code to it and distribute it. If you don't want anyone else than your clients to distribute your plugin along proprietary code you can license it to them under the LGPL and to the rest of the world under the GPL, as it is your right as the copyright holder. L ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Albert Graef wrote: > Yes. IANAL and all that, but the GPL is very clear on that, see e.g.: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF i would hardly call this "very clear" - Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in? If [ ... ] ***WE BELIEVE*** they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that ***IS A BORDERLINE CASE***. - (emphasis added) > In fact, library authors decidedly use the GPL (rather than the LGPL > which allows linking against proprietary software) to prevent > unsolicited use of their libraries in commercial software. i don't believe that this is really the same thing. yes, this definitely the point of releasing a library under the GPL. but libraries are not plugins. They do not supply an API, they use one. plugins are derivatives of a plugin API (which may also be a library), just as hosts might be. that doesn't make hosts derivatives of the plugins, which is quite different to the situation where a program (even a host) uses a library in a more traditional way. maybe the mathematical formulation is: is derivation distributive? or have i even forgotten that much of my high school math? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Victor Lazzarini wrote: > I think this is the closest to the scenario I am envisaging. There is a > host, which is non-Free and commercial, currently using a non-Free > plugin, which is packaged with it. This non-Free plugin gets substituted > by a Free plugin, which is free because, amongst other things, it links > to a GPL dynamic library. Is this breaking the original GPL license of > the dynamic lib the plugin links to? Yes. IANAL and all that, but the GPL is very clear on that, see e.g.: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF In fact, library authors decidedly use the GPL (rather than the LGPL which allows linking against proprietary software) to prevent unsolicited use of their libraries in commercial software. Of course, the vendor can always ask you and the author(s) of the 3rd party library for a commercial license which allows it to distribute the plugin with its commercial program. You can also put an exception into your plugin license which specifically allows linking against the commercial program, but you'd still have to ask the author(s) of the GPL'd library for the same kind of permission. HTH, Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: dr.gr...@t-online.de, a...@muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW:http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
That's easy to answer: it's usable producing a file as output. It won't have means to play this file, for which it uses the plugin. It could potentially use different plugins of the same architecture to do the same thing. In fact, that's what is being done: the non-free plugin gets the boot and a free one is used instead. I guess this is not a decision for me. I can say what I will do, explain the caveats and provide the software, if the customer agrees to have it like that. I think I have enough information now to pass on to whoever needs to decide. Thanks everyone for your responses. Victor On 21 Jun 2010, at 21:28, Paul Davis wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: I am not expecting legal advice. I am a developer too, working exclusively with Free software; I was never in a situation where I had to check closely the GPL license, but I expect that someone here might have had previous experience. victor, i think that the real issue here is the extent to which the host is completely usable without either version of the plugin. the fact that there is a nonfree version of the plugin definitely complicates matters though. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > The plugin is just a Free software plugin, that is GPL, distributed in > binary form and source code etc. It is written as a plugin, so it can be > used by any host of the same API. The host will load this plugin instead of > the proprietary non-free plugin that it replaces. The plugin is made > available separately, but is also bundled with the host, which loads it > automatically. I would be uneasy about that last bit -- the fact that the host treats this plugin differently from others. I think we're deep within a genuine grey area here (an area that is both completely untested and in which people's opinions differ) but I could well imagine an argument being made on the basis of the interdependence of plugin and host. > My reasons for asking this are that I was asked to write such a plugin and > i) I don't normally do proprietary software; ii) I don't like to reinvent > the wheel. If I can't provide a free solution, I may as well not take the > job. If I were in this position, I think I would not feel comfortable providing a GPL plugin. That's probably about all I can say though, and one person's ill-supported opinion probably isn't of much use. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > I am not expecting legal advice. I am a developer too, working exclusively > with Free software; I was never in a situation where I had to check closely > the GPL license, but I expect that someone here might have had previous > experience. victor, i think that the real issue here is the extent to which the host is completely usable without either version of the plugin. the fact that there is a nonfree version of the plugin definitely complicates matters though. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
I am not expecting legal advice. I am a developer too, working exclusively with Free software; I was never in a situation where I had to check closely the GPL license, but I expect that someone here might have had previous experience. Victor On 21 Jun 2010, at 20:47, Luis Garrido wrote: I don't think many of the list subscribers are lawyers. This is a developer list, after all, so perhaps this is not the most reliable place to get legal advice. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
The plugin is just a Free software plugin, that is GPL, distributed in binary form and source code etc. It is written as a plugin, so it can be used by any host of the same API. The host will load this plugin instead of the proprietary non-free plugin that it replaces. The plugin is made available separately, but is also bundled with the host, which loads it automatically. My reasons for asking this are that I was asked to write such a plugin and i) I don't normally do proprietary software; ii) I don't like to reinvent the wheel. If I can't provide a free solution, I may as well not take the job. Victor On 21 Jun 2010, at 20:34, Chris Cannam wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: I think this is the closest to the scenario I am envisaging. There is a host, which is non-Free and commercial, currently using a non-Free plugin, which is packaged with it. This non-Free plugin gets substituted by a Free plugin, which is free because, amongst other things, it links to a GPL dynamic library. Is this breaking the original GPL license of the dynamic lib the plugin links to? That doesn't seem like enough information for anyone to attempt an answer. What do you mean by "gets substituted by"? Do the distributors of the application swap in the GPL plugin, or does the user who received it? If the latter, how? Was the GPL plugin written specifically to replace the proprietary one? Can it be used in other hosts? My inclination is that the answer to your question is probably no, this wouldn't violate the licence. But the fact that you're asking at all makes me wonder whether this is a situation in which the plugin has been designed specifically to interact with a single proprietary application, or a situation in which the host is distributed with a plugin that is treated differently from others. If that's so, then it's possible a court might think that the plugin containing API code was a derivative work of the host that implemented the API. I'm not aware of any case in which this has actually been tested either way. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
I don't think many of the list subscribers are lawyers. This is a developer list, after all, so perhaps this is not the most reliable place to get legal advice. But I think what Paul is saying is the sensible thing: if the GPL plugin is integral to the host functionality and loaded automatically, any developer advising a jury will concur that the situation is in no significant way different to dynamic linking at compile time. The host is indeed a derivative work and thus should not be _distributed_ without providing its source code. You can use it in the machine you have developed it, though, or in any other one as long as you copy both the plugin and the host source code to it. I guess if the host authors are bent on not contributing to the OSS community with their source code, they could always try to contact the plugin authors and get from them a proprietary license, which they are entitled to provide as their copyright holders. For instance, let's say someone writes an automatic accompaniment generator and uses internally a GPL sampler to play it and render a WAV version. I'd say that's derivative, since those features contribute significantly to the product usefulness, and thus its marketability. IANAL, but if I was asked by a jury that would be my opinion. L ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > I think this is the closest to the scenario I am envisaging. There is a > host, which is non-Free and commercial, currently using a non-Free plugin, > which is packaged with it. This non-Free plugin gets substituted by a Free > plugin, which is free because, amongst other things, it links to a GPL > dynamic library. Is this breaking the original GPL license of the dynamic > lib the plugin links to? That doesn't seem like enough information for anyone to attempt an answer. What do you mean by "gets substituted by"? Do the distributors of the application swap in the GPL plugin, or does the user who received it? If the latter, how? Was the GPL plugin written specifically to replace the proprietary one? Can it be used in other hosts? My inclination is that the answer to your question is probably no, this wouldn't violate the licence. But the fact that you're asking at all makes me wonder whether this is a situation in which the plugin has been designed specifically to interact with a single proprietary application, or a situation in which the host is distributed with a plugin that is treated differently from others. If that's so, then it's possible a court might think that the plugin containing API code was a derivative work of the host that implemented the API. I'm not aware of any case in which this has actually been tested either way. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
I think this is the closest to the scenario I am envisaging. There is a host, which is non-Free and commercial, currently using a non-Free plugin, which is packaged with it. This non-Free plugin gets substituted by a Free plugin, which is free because, amongst other things, it links to a GPL dynamic library. Is this breaking the original GPL license of the dynamic lib the plugin links to? I see for instance that in the case of LinuxSampler, this would clearly be a breach of license, because of the extra condition attached relating to commercial software. But what about plain GPL? Victor On 21 Jun 2010, at 12:34, Paul Davis wrote: But I think that in the direction that you asked it then I think its a little more restrictive, with the same proviso that Chris offered: you as a user of a GPL'ed plugin can do whatever you want with it, including load it into a non-GPL host. However, I don't believe that the developers and/or distributors of the host can arrange for this happen in any "automatic" way, and would even be skirting a thin line by packaging their host with GPL'd plugins that would be discovered automatically. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Nils Hammerfest wrote: > So this is an example the other way around, that the GPL (intends to/) covers > plugins if they are derived in a way that they are only runnable for a single > host software. a good example, indeed. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Hello, in Denemo, which is GPL, (http://www.denemo.org) we had a similar problem. Our plugins are scripted scheme code and scheme is just a language. So what about user scripts? Are they just programs and the author can decide or are they GPL, too? Since we are GNU we could ask the "bosses" directly :) In our case Denemo exports special Scheme commands from C so you have to use them which makes the scripts a derived work under GPL, which is nice because we don't need the authors permission to include it in our website or integrate it in our "mainline" command set. The key here is that our plugins can only be run with one host, Denemo. So this is an example the other way around, that the GPL (intends to/) covers plugins if they are derived in a way that they are only runnable for a single host software. Nils On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:13:33 +0100 Victor Lazzarini wrote: > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free > code can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? > > Thanks > > Victor > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 06:40 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > > > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? > > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code > > can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? > > This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be > worthwhile searching the archives. (Yes, I know that > searching LAD takes perseverence. :-)) Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 09:24:19.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[82F1D4E0:01CA15AE] http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=Re%3A+[LAD]+GPL+Violation+Alert! +-+update&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=605bfc997273a220 > According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because it's > dynamic linking. BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is > more black-and-white today than it was last year. > > However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins?? To > allow this sort of thing? So, I think the FSF's opinion is > still up for debate. In addition, I doubt most plugin > authors will get upset with someone doing this. > > Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special > permission for this (see, for example [2]). > > Chris is also right: This is not an end-user issue. This > is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor > issue. > > -gabriel > > [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins > [2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html > Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception > for hosts, and again wy at the end where it mentions > the FSF. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Julien 'Lta' BALLET wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works note that none of the discussions cited really covers the case that matters for plugins. the key distinction is that plugin APIs generally have a definition that is indepedent of any particular host. there are exceptions for a few hosts that provide their own plugin API. but in general, something like VST or LADSPA or AudioUnit or LV2 cannot be said to be related to any host or plugin in particular. This means that the host or plugin is undoubtedly a derived work of the plugin **API**, but its very hard to argue that the host or plugin is a derived work of the other, at least not when they are distributed independently and the host shows no reliance of any kind on the plugin. If you can load a plugin into Ardour and you can load the same plugin into Logic, its pretty hard to argue that the plugin is a derived work of Ardour or Logic. The most hosts a plugin can be loaded into, the more clearly this lack of derivation becomes clear. On the other hand, if you could only use a particular host if you have a particular plugin available, and the host is distributed in a way so as to automatically load that plugin, then I think that even if the relationship between them is based on a 3rd party plugin API, one could quite easily argue that the host is a derived work of the plugin, in the FSF/GPL sense. --p ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote: A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be worthwhile searching the archives. (Yes, I know that searching LAD takes perseverence. :-)) According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because it's dynamic linking. BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is more black-and-white today than it was last year. However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins?? To allow this sort of thing? So, I think the FSF's opinion is still up for debate. In addition, I doubt most plugin authors will get upset with someone doing this. Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special permission for this (see, for example [2]). Chris is also right: This is not an end-user issue. This is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor issue. -gabriel [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins [2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception for hosts, and again wy at the end where it mentions the FSF. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Victor Lazzarini > wrote: >> A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? > > First off -- you can _do_ anything you like with a GPL plugin, the > question is whether you could legally redistribute it. Beyond that, I > don't think there is a single answer to this -- I think in practice it > would depend on whether the one thing (plugin or host) would be seen > by the reasonable person to be a derivative work of the other. If the > plugin only worked with a single host, or the plugin was necessary in > order to use the host, then it might be. If it used a well-defined > API supported by multiple hosts, perhaps predating either of the host > or plugin in question, then it probably wouldn't. > > As a concrete example I think a GPL VST plugin would be perfectly > fine, provided of course that it used none of Steinberg's SDK code. > There are GPL'd VST hosts out there, so clearly the plugin does not > depend on a non-free host and can be happily distributed under the > GPL. What you choose to do with it once you've received it is up to > you -- the GPL only covers distribution -- so yes, I would think you > could indeed make, distribute, and use such a plugin. > > > Chris > ___ Hello, Wikipedia has interesting information about this topic, with the differents opinions available on this particular topic. The main thing it explains is that there's nothing sure about this :-/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works -- Lta. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code > can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? RMS and others within the FSF would appear to like this to be a complex question. It was always a gray area of GPL2, and originally GPL3 was going to clear it up before Tivoization became the main focus of GPL3. Your question is often asked in reverse - can a GPL'ed host load non-GPL'ed plugins, and I think that the answer here is extremely straightforward: yes, if the plugin uses an API which is independent of any particular host and only interacts with the host via that API. But I think that in the direction that you asked it then I think its a little more restrictive, with the same proviso that Chris offered: you as a user of a GPL'ed plugin can do whatever you want with it, including load it into a non-GPL host. However, I don't believe that the developers and/or distributors of the host can arrange for this happen in any "automatic" way, and would even be skirting a thin line by packaging their host with GPL'd plugins that would be discovered automatically. --p ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? First off -- you can _do_ anything you like with a GPL plugin, the question is whether you could legally redistribute it. Beyond that, I don't think there is a single answer to this -- I think in practice it would depend on whether the one thing (plugin or host) would be seen by the reasonable person to be a derivative work of the other. If the plugin only worked with a single host, or the plugin was necessary in order to use the host, then it might be. If it used a well-defined API supported by multiple hosts, perhaps predating either of the host or plugin in question, then it probably wouldn't. As a concrete example I think a GPL VST plugin would be perfectly fine, provided of course that it used none of Steinberg's SDK code. There are GPL'd VST hosts out there, so clearly the plugin does not depend on a non-free host and can be happily distributed under the GPL. What you choose to do with it once you've received it is up to you -- the GPL only covers distribution -- so yes, I would think you could indeed make, distribute, and use such a plugin. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins
Hello Victor1 I'm no guru, when it comes to licenses. But I don't really see a problem. As long as the non-free host can somehow manage to legally include the SDK to load the modules, then it's no problem. It's on the user's side of things, to load a plugin or not load it. I'd think the problem could be to include modules with the non-free software. But if the user downloads them herself, that should be OK. The license of those plugins should be clear. Best wishes Julien Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: http://ltsb.sourceforge.net the Linux TextBased Studio guide === AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: === http://www.juliencoder.de ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] GPL and plugins
A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts? This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules? Thanks Victor ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
