I have never been good at the implications of licences.  my curent
question is if I use a GPL2 licenced library in a Csound (LGPL) plugin,
what are the licence implications?

Not theoretical -- I need an answer!

==John ff


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

The GPL requires "derivative works" of GPL code to also be GPL. It is
clear enough that the authors of the GPL want any code that calls GPL
libraries to be considered "derivative works." In my view, and the
view of many others, this goes too far in the case of dynamic load
libraries.

That is because the client code can blindly dynamically load libraries
(as Csound does plugins) and see whether they contain a required
exported symbol and call it. The client code does not need to
"contain" or "know" anything at all about any GPL code as such. This
would particularly be the case if the function signatures and
protocols involved had been created before the GPL code.

I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the case has not yet been
settled in law.

What is the particular library about which you are concerned?

>From the Wikipedia:

Libraries
According to the FSF, "The GPL does not require you to release your
modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make
modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing
them."[40] However if one releases a GPL-licensed entity to the
public, there is an issue regarding linking: namely, if a proprietary
program uses a GPL library, is the proprietary program in violation of
the GPL?
This key dispute is whether or not non-GPL software can legally
statically link or dynamically link to GPL libraries. Different
opinions exist on this issue. The GPL is clear in requiring that all
derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the
GPL. Ambiguity arises with regards to using GPL libraries, and
bundling GPL software into a larger package (perhaps mixed into a
binary via static linking). This is ultimately a question not of the
GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. The
following points of view exist:
[edit]Point of view: dynamic and static linking violate GPL
The Free Software Foundation (which holds the copyright of several
notable GPL-licensed software products and of the license text itself)
asserts that an executable which uses a dynamically linked library is
indeed a derivative work. This does not however apply to separate
programs communicating with one another.[41]
Free Software Foundation also created LGPL which is nearly identical
to GPL, but with additional permission to allow linking for the
purposes of "using the library".
Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers to
license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the
libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving
it more tools than the proprietary world.[42]
[edit]Plug-ins
FSF differentiate on how the plug-in is being invoked. If the Plug-in
is invoked through dynamic linkage and it performs function calls to
the GPL program then it's most likely a derivative work.[43]
[edit]Point of view: static linking violates GPL but unclear as of
dynamic linking
Some people believe that while static linking produces derivative
works, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to
a GPL code should be considered a derivative work (see Weak Copyleft).
Linux author Linus Torvalds agrees that dynamic linking can create
derived works but disagrees over the circumstances.[44]
A Novell lawyer has written that dynamic linking not being derivative
"makes sense" but is not "clear-cut", and that evidence for
good-intentioned dynamic linking can be seen by the existence of
proprietary Linux kernel drivers.[45]
In Galoob v. Nintendo the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
defined a derivative work as having "'form' or permanence" and noted
that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the
copyrighted work in some form",[46] but there have been no clear court
decisions to resolve this particular conflict.


On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:05 PM,   wrote:
> I have never been good at the implications of licences.  my curent
> question is if I use a GPL2 licenced library in a Csound (LGPL) plugin,
> what are the licence implications?
>
> Not theoretical -- I need an answer!
>
> ==John ff
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>



-- 
Michael Gogins
Irreducible Productions
http://www.michael-gogins.com
Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

The plugin uses a GPL library and both the official FSF stance and
consensus (or at least the consensus I've seen) is that the plugin is
a derived work of the library and thus must be licensed under a
GPL-compatible license. LGPL fits the bill. However, the  GPL also
requires that the derived works be distributed under the same terms as
the original software, thus effectively[1] relicensing the plugin as
GPL. Therefore, we can consider the question "what if I want to do a
GPL plugin?"

The FSF stance on GPL plugins is that they impose the GPL
restrictions[2] on the loading program. It would thus convert csound
into a GPL program, by the same logic as above. However, if that
plugin is not built and distributed in binary form, then the library
continues to be LGPL.


[1] I say effectively, because although the software is technically
LGPL, the GPL terms of the library eliminate the extra permissions
given by the LGPL.
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 16:05,   wrote:
> I have never been good at the implications of licences.  my curent
> question is if I use a GPL2 licenced library in a Csound (LGPL) plugin,
> what are the licence implications?
>
> Not theoretical -- I need an answer!
>
> ==John ff
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>



-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.so

i am wondering if it could be a simple solution just to ask the authors
of the library about using their library in csound?
	joachim



Am 18.10.2011 01:56, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> The plugin uses a GPL library and both the official FSF stance and
> consensus (or at least the consensus I've seen) is that the plugin is
> a derived work of the library and thus must be licensed under a
> GPL-compatible license. LGPL fits the bill. However, the  GPL also
> requires that the derived works be distributed under the same terms as
> the original software, thus effectively[1] relicensing the plugin as
> GPL. Therefore, we can consider the question "what if I want to do a
> GPL plugin?"
> 
> The FSF stance on GPL plugins is that they impose the GPL
> restrictions[2] on the loading program. It would thus convert csound
> into a GPL program, by the same logic as above. However, if that
> plugin is not built and distributed in binary form, then the library
> continues to be LGPL.
> 
> 
> [1] I say effectively, because although the software is technically
> LGPL, the GPL terms of the library eliminate the extra permissions
> given by the LGPL.
> [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
> 
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 16:05,   wrote:
>> I have never been good at the implications of licences.  my curent
>> question is if I use a GPL2 licenced library in a Csound (LGPL) plugin,
>> what are the licence implications?
>>
>> Not theoretical -- I need an answer!
>>
>> ==John ff
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
>> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
>> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
>> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
>> _______________________________________________
>> Csound-devel mailing list
>> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>>
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Hi,

Yes, I did that and got approval to use some code from alsa inside
Csound licensed as LGPL.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:04 AM, joachim heintz  wrote:
> i am wondering if it could be a simple solution just to ask the authors
> of the library about using their library in csound?
>        joachim
>
>
>
> Am 18.10.2011 01:56, schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> The plugin uses a GPL library and both the official FSF stance and
>> consensus (or at least the consensus I've seen) is that the plugin is
>> a derived work of the library and thus must be licensed under a
>> GPL-compatible license. LGPL fits the bill. However, the  GPL also
>> requires that the derived works be distributed under the same terms as
>> the original software, thus effectively[1] relicensing the plugin as
>> GPL. Therefore, we can consider the question "what if I want to do a
>> GPL plugin?"
>>
>> The FSF stance on GPL plugins is that they impose the GPL
>> restrictions[2] on the loading program. It would thus convert csound
>> into a GPL program, by the same logic as above. However, if that
>> plugin is not built and distributed in binary form, then the library
>> continues to be LGPL.
>>
>>
>> [1] I say effectively, because although the software is technically
>> LGPL, the GPL terms of the library eliminate the extra permissions
>> given by the LGPL.
>> [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 16:05,   wrote:
>>> I have never been good at the implications of licences.  my curent
>>> question is if I use a GPL2 licenced library in a Csound (LGPL) plugin,
>>> what are the licence implications?
>>>
>>> Not theoretical -- I need an answer!
>>>
>>> ==John ff
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
>>> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
>>> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
>>> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Csound-devel mailing list
>>> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
> definitive record of customers, application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-dev