3 ms·

But it's clearly not as simple. The GPL triggers on distribution of the combined work - the user is free to link GPL'ed and other code with incompatible license

But it's clearly not as simple. The GPL triggers on distribution of the combined work - the user is free to link GPL'ed and other code with incompatible licenses as long as they do not redistribute. For example, the kernel modules for VirtualBox are distributed in source form under a commercial license and need to be compiled on the users box against the kernel header. Distributing the modules in binary form would likely be a violation, as would be distributing OBS with the closed source plugins - but that's not what happens here. So the GPL only triggers when a work incorporating GPL code is distributed, so the question here boils down to "does the plugin itself contain GPL code" and not to "can it be loaded into a GPL'ed program on the users computer." The GPL does not and cannot force a license on some piece of software that only implements an API - it can only affect software that directly incorporates code. Think about it this way: If the mere ability to be loaded as a pieces of software into a GPL'ed program is sufficient to force the piece of software under GPL, then I could just write a small GPL program for any piece of closed source software and force it under GPL. That clearly doesn't work.

tyingq 5y ago
>so the question here boils down to "does the plugin itself contain GPL code" and not to "can it be loaded into a GPL'ed program on the users computer." I don't think it's that simple either. You mentioned the Virtual box kernel modules. There's plenty of discussion, some from Linus that some kernel modules are "derived works of Linux" and some are not. The binary Nvidea kernel drivers had to skip using a zero-copy DMA feature because of this, even if they shipped standalone. I suspect the same situation exists here. OBS, for example, has some very specific structs, header files, api functions, and other ways of interacting with plugins. A plugin made to work with OBS could very well be a derivative work, regardless of whether it ships with OBS or not. Distribution of the derivative work alone triggers the GPL in that case.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  I’m not saying it could not be. I’m saying that a cursory search of the internet provides no substantial allegation that this is the case - and the article just asserts so, without any further citations or discussion.

tyingq 5y ago

>so the question here boils down to "does the plugin itself contain GPL code" and not to "can it be loaded into a GPL'ed program on the users computer." I don't think it's that simple either. You mentioned the Virtual box kernel modules. There's plenty of discussion, some from Linus that some kernel modules are "derived works of Linux" and some are not. The binary Nvidea kernel drivers had to skip using a zero-copy DMA feature because of this, even if they shipped standalone. I suspect the same situation exists here. OBS, for example, has some very specific structs, header files, api functions, and other ways of interacting with plugins. A plugin made to work with OBS could very well be a derivative work, regardless of whether it ships with OBS or not. Distribution of the derivative work alone triggers the GPL in that case.

Xylakant 5y ago
I’m not saying it could not be. I’m saying that a cursory search of the internet provides no substantial allegation that this is the case - and the article just asserts so, without any further citations or discussion.