On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code > of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to > distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the GPL. That is, you'll have to distribute source along with binaries and the rest of it. The libraries remain under the MIT license, of course: these requirements come from the GPL'd library's license (which consider your plugin to be a combined work), and so these restrictions go away if all GPL linkage goes away later, or if code from the plugin is used elsewhere in a program that isn't linking against GPL libraries. That is, there's still a benefit to using the MIT license, even if you're linking against GPL software. Also, if you're not distributing the GPL-licensed plugins, then you aren't restricted; only people distributing GPL-encumbered packages are. The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't add any new problems, at least. (For what it's worth, I doubt most people using the GPL have thought all that much about its consequences and effects, at least from my experience of discussing those effects with people ...) -- Glenn Maynard
