Just trying to follow the discussion with precision here: surely you
mean "This now prevents *distributing Rhythmbox* ... " in the third
sentence here, not "This now prevents using the MP3 plugin ...."
Correct?<br>
<br>
I'm also (frankly) not convinced that that is what section 7
means. Does anyone have actual documentation to that effect from,
let's say, one of the other applications that has instituted an
exception clause such as the one suggested in discussion here? <br>
<br>
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just would want a lawyer's opinion on
whether linking-to-something-that-links-to-something-non-GPL
constitutes a derived work. It's two full degrees of separation;
that's clearly not the same scenario as linking directly to an MP3
plugin component. A lawyer's opinion or some sort of established
precedent.<br>
<br>
Anybody have any links to evidence of that type?<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Nate<br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Aigars Mahinovs</b> <<a href="mailto:aigarius@debian.org">aigarius@debian.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
1. Rythmbox is GPL. Gstreamer is LGPL. As soon as Rythmbox links with<br>Gstreamer, the result is derrived work licenced under GPL. This now<br>prevents using the MP3 plugin because of 7. section of GPL. The<br>workaround is to make an amendment to Rythmox licence specifically
<br>allowing linking non-GPL Gstreamer plugins and removing any patent<br>bariers from the copyright side.<br></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>nathan.p.willis<br><a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com
</a><br><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/willis">flickr.com/photos/willis</a>