3 ms·
Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario: Someone takes a GIMP plug-in
by vlasta2 14y ago
Agree, but I think the GPL examples about communication mechanisms are pretty weird and sometimes absurd. Consider this scenario:
Someone takes a GIMP plug-in licensed under GPL and converts it to a Photoshop plug-in (which is a DLL and shares memory space with Photoshop).
According to GPL, Photoshop would now have to be open-sourced, but the person, who converted the plug-in does not have access to Photoshop source code.
What now? Goes GPL actually forbids the existence of this? What if the converted plug-in with the source code is published? Is that actually illegal? What if they only publish the adapted source code and not the binary? What if a third person compiles it and publishes the binary? Who would be the guilty party?
- flomo 14y agoI've followed GPL discussions from the sidelines for sometime, and whenever someone comes up with a 'trick' scenario like this, the standard advice is "if you'd like to do that, call your lawyer". (The legal definition of 'derived works' is based in case law and is more complex than what you'd find in a FSF FAQ.)
- aidenn0 14y agoIANAL, but: Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. If that part of the GPL is enforcable (no precedent that I am aware of) then you would essentially be pirating the GPL code, and can be sued for monetary damages by the owner of the copyright for that code.
- lutusp 14y ago> Distributing a photoshop plugin containing GPL code is a violation of the GPL as it is worded. That would only be true if the distributor failed to provide the source code to any interested party who asked for it. If he met that requirement, and if he included all the original copyright notices in the source along with his own, there's no violation.
- aidenn0 14y agoThe source code to photoshop?