Fluendo MP3 GStreamer Plugin in Main for Dapper?

Nathan Willis listbot at glyphography.com
Mon Jan 2 15:36:25 GMT 2006

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?

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?

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.

Anybody have any links to evidence of that type?


On 1/1/06, Aigars Mahinovs <aigarius at debian.org> wrote:
> 1. Rythmbox is GPL. Gstreamer is LGPL. As soon as Rythmbox links with
> Gstreamer, the result is derrived work licenced under GPL. This now
> prevents using the MP3 plugin because of 7. section of GPL. The
> workaround is to make an amendment to Rythmox licence specifically
> allowing linking non-GPL Gstreamer plugins and removing any patent
> bariers from the copyright side.

nwillis at glyphography.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060102/c61cd9f6/attachment.htm

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list