GPL License Effect on Plugins - Question & Discussion
By Angsuman Chakraborty, Gaea News NetworkThursday, June 1, 2006
Assume Foo Bah distributes a software which uses (plugin) API from a GPL’ed software. However this work is not distributed or packaged with the GPL’ed software. It is independently downloaded by the users of GPL’ed software to add functionality to their GPL’ed software. Is Foo Bah’s software required to be under GPL?
GPL license states that - “You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.”
Which is perfectly fine for Foo Bah as his software doesn’t need to distribute or modify the GPL’ed Program or derivative works (in this context).
Let the wisdom of the internet pour on this simple question to enlighten all of us. Please answer with explanations for your decision.
June 2, 2006: 10:41 am
@Donald That’s a very good point. I have to agree with you on that. At this point it appears clear to me that any plugins for GPL software doesn’t fall under GPL, specifically if it isn’t shipped with the GPL’ed product. Yay. |
June 2, 2006: 7:12 am
“I am not a lawyer” They key point here is that these are all copyright issues. If you do not distribute or modify any GPL code, then how could you be breaking any copyright rules? - Don |
June 1, 2006: 2:07 pm
Technology Law offices of Rosenlaw & Einschlag has this to say on derivative works:
|
June 1, 2006: 2:01 pm
@Andrew
If Foo Bah doesn’t accept the GPL license, which is within his rights as he hasn’t signed it, he doesn’t get the right to distribute the GPL’ed program or its derivative works. The key points are - derivative works and scope of GPL license. The definition of derivative work is under the copyright law.
Also the GPL license states that: In wikipedia some rule of thumbs are defined:
Looking forward to hear your thoughts and Kevin’s. |
![]() Andrew Shuttlewood |
June 1, 2006: 10:49 am
Surely by using the interface that the application exposes it is a derivative work? That’s the argument of the GPL - that by writing to a GPL’d interface, you are building a derivative work - no matter the distribution requirement. Of course, this could go quite far - for example, something that merely called gcc could be arguably a derivative work of gcc if it was designed around it. I think in general it is wise to avoid developing plugins for GPL’d applications unless you are willing to GPL the plugin, or alternatively the license permits it. |
June 1, 2006: 10:42 am
As I understand it, as long as Foo Bah does not include and distribute any GPL code, there is no way the GPL is involved with Foo Bah itself. Just because someone else can choose to download and use GPLed code with Foo Bah cannot impact Foo Bah itself. |
Angsuman Chakraborty