On 3/8/07, Thomas Grill gr@grrrr.org 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. 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.
Not to mention, that the GPL has never been rigorously tested in a court of law. At least in the United States, such matters are in something of a legal limbo, until the courts set precedents.
Interestingly, this identical issue came up on the ChucK list today. There is a [chuck~] external for max/msp, which it turns out probably violates the GPL.
Anyway, I'm all for the pragmatic approach as Thomas Grill has just expressed ... (Just like, if I decide I want to sample a Prince song tomorrow night, I'm going to do it, copyright laws be damned...!)
~David