Re: [xine-devel] licencing problems/question

[Michel L. <wa...@zo...>]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:53:35PM -0400, Downing, Thomas wrote:
> What about a xine .so?  There seems to be an ongoing debate on what
> the GPL means when using an .so as opposed to a .a.

Dynamic linking to a .so is still linking. So if you link with a GPL
shared library, you are subject to the terms of the GPL. This is
actually one of the main differences between the GPL and the LGPL.

> If the xine team holds that the GPL means that linking to a .so also
> requires that the linking image be GPL, then I think that is shuting
> the door on the acceptance of open software in general, and xine in
> particular.

It's possible. (I dont think this has been a problem for xine
development though)

The opposite is also certainly true: proprietary licensing is a
barrier to acceptance, as the terms of the licence might not be
acceptable to everyone.

Actually, this is one of the reasons people work on free software :)

> The reason I am developing these is partly for my own interest, but also
> as a skunk works for my company (i.e., it is in the budget.)  If I am
> unable to link to a .so version of the runtime, then I will cease work
> forthwith.  Needless to say, in that case my plugins are not likely to 
> be released, and the enhancements _never_ will be.
> 
> That means that to take advantage of the enhancements will require reverse
> engineering if they are ever to be available in xine.

I hope I'm only misunderstanding you: Are you suggesting you would
release 'enhanced' versions of xine without the source code ? If so,
that would be illegal.

Cheers,

-- 
Michel "Walken" LESPINASSE
Is this the best that god can do ? Then I'm not impressed.