> Well, that is another issue. The UIL can contain any number of UI's that work > with Piper through CORBA. Perhaps you're talking about Pied and Peep. They > too may have plugins (UI-dependent widgets), which I believe would be treated > as libraries just like any GTK+ widget. I was thinking about a simple UI program... if you have libraries going there it might change... I would settle for the license the majority decides for the UIL. > So, you're saying that > > Any licensed PL + GPL'd .so + non-GPL'd .so = Illegal linking Yes, if you plus(+) sign actually means linking in the GPL-sense. What I am unsure about is that dlopen-ing a library explicitly is considered linking by teh GPL. > Can you give me an example of a non-GPL'd .so that you might want to use? Well, you could have a node that links with the matlab library to do some stuff. Some nodes could link to other OSS libraries that are not GPL-compatible (apache license, artistic, old-style BSD, ...). Or there could be vendors that supply closed-source nodes, just like you can have closed-source drivers in Linux. I see the PL as a language, so you could compare it to gcc. The gcc license doesn't say "you cannot use gcc to link programs with closed-source libraries". > Of course, this is not the same issue as wrapping a pre-existing program to > run as a node. I think we can consider that to NOT be linking as defined by > the GPL. That's what I've been talking about regarding license modifications. Wraping an executable is definitly not linking, so it's OK with any license we use. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Valin Universite de Sherbrooke - Genie Electrique valj01 at gel.usherb.ca