Hallo, Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if
there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd
plugins.
You could always "resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program." [1]
I always assumed, that flext had such a clause, as obviously it is intended to be used with the non-free Max/MSP as well.
I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is
odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different
license. Idealism gone.
Why is it odd, that the GPL does not permit linking GPL-binaries with closed-source programs as default? I think, it was one of the motivations of Stallman to make a clear cut between non-free and free software, because his original goal was to develop "a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free." [1] (If all that is a good idea, is another discussion, of course.)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF [2] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__