SVP и GPL (Page 1 of 2)

If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the
requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?
-------------------------------------
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program
uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate
programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements
for them.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main
program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released
under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the
terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication
between them is limited to invoking the 'main' function of the plug-in
with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline
case.

Наш случай - третий абзац.

Хотя прямого ответа в нем и нет, но мне думается что в этом случае
подходит вот это:

Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
-----------------------
If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps
it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the
program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention
in the README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback,
and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same
job without the non-free library. Please suggest that anyone who
thinks of doing substantial further work on the program first free it
from dependence on the non-free library.

Что кратко переводится как "ну пожалуйста пожалуйста не надо".

[...]

Далее, вот там -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins, не менее прямо
классифицируются три случая взаимосвязи GPL программы и non-GPL
библиотеки. Я приводил этот текст в предыдущем письме.

В нашем случае, это "that is a borderline case" между " license for
the main program makes no requirements for them" и " the plug-ins must
be released under the GPL". Иными словами, авторы GPL сами не знают,
что в этом случае следует делать D)

Но сужение круга "допущенных" ничего хорошего проекту не приносит

В то же время см. закрытый Splash и его развитие за год.

Примерно так же (т.е. никак) развивается открытый MPC-HC vs закрытый PotPlayer.

С нуля до лидера (за отсутствием реальных конкурентов).

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

Сегодня любое начинание , оторванное от железа , не имеет перспектив .
Наглядный пример - яблочные продукты

Что серьезного добавилось / изменилось в MPC за последние, например, два года?

SVP и GPL

имхо успех яблока - жлобс умеет делать устройства завтрашнего дня - сегодня.

о чем спор ?