Hi Fons,
I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but here is the (young)
TimeSide module we're developping right now. It all about audio transcoding,
analyzing, graphing through pipes with python :
http://code.google.com/p/timeside/
The first (beta) package has been released last
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
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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Chris Cannam
can...@all-day-breakfast.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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,
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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Julien 'Lta' BALLET
elthar...@gmail.com 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
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
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
Is there any problem with the list(s) server(s)? The last message that I
received is from friday, but I see in the archive web page that there
was more since that day.
The same seems to happens in LAU.
Natanael.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
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,
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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
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
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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Albert Graef dr.gr...@t-online.de 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
Marc,
Could you shed some light on this? The server's been up running
without any issues. And the mail-queue looks normal.
@Natanael: Did you get a warning message? (maybe in your SPAM folder)
If there's repeated bounces from your email address your subscription
would be disabled (you won't be
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Victor Lazzarini
victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie 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
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
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
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Albert Graef dr.gr...@t-online.de 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
And is there a snowballs chance in hell that this is un-encumbered?
http://electronicdesign.com/tabid/57/default.aspx?topic=algorithm_delivers_lossless_compression_to_adc_samplescatpath=fltrTitle=fltrSummary=fltrPublication.aspx?nl=1
Yeah, I sub to a lot of stuff, and occasionally a gem comes
25 matches
Mail list logo
