Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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.
Distributing source was the plan all along, just not restricting what that source can be linked with. > 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 thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL. > 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. There is a plugin that uses OpenSSL... > (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 ...) I suspect that might be the case. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
