<quote who="Benno"> > So... just working from this, if I write a plug-in for a GPL program, > that is I make my program provide a known interface, and I don't need > to use any of the orginal programs header to do this, then my plug-in > doesn't need to be GPLed?
There is a strong argument to suggest this, yeah. > If this is what you are saying it seems to contradict the GPL FAQ > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins). The important > sentence here being "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they > make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe > they form a single program". > I guess I'm trying to point out why I am confused about this, when the FAQ > says one thing, but what you are now telling me appears (at least to me) > to contradict the FAQ. What the FAQ doesn't talk about is how 'derivative work' would be regarded in terms of copyright, being based purely on technicalities to do with linking and such. The argument I'm making above (which I don't necessarily agree or disagree with, or support, etc) is that linking itself doesn't necessarily indicate a derivative work. It's all about 'modification' and 'editorialisation', 'translation', etc. But... The GPL is a license, permits certain things, defines certain things, and has its own relationship with copyright law. Don't take anything I've said as true or meaningful (I really am just presenting arguments), ask your lawyer, etc., etc. - Jeff -- Come to gnome.conf.au 2004! http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/2004/gnome.conf.au/ Snow Crash was a terrible book: Superheroes wear their underpants on the outside, not for two weeks without changing them. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
