> There is a problem, as he says, if Piper requires these libraries to run. I > don't believe that any of the libraries that Jean-Marc is concerned about will > be required. But, they should not be shipped/distributed with Piper either. > Then, it is the user's concern. Piper will not require any of these plugins... and I don't think we should have restrictions about what we can ship together. After all, RedHat used to ship StarOffice (non-Free) with its Linux distribution. > > > I agree with him: we should play safe by explicitly specifying the exception, > > but the fact that the user does the linking, makes (I think) linking a non-free > > node with a GPL node legal. Since the linking is only done on demand at > > run-time, there's no redistribution problem. > > Yes, I agree. We should include that exception. It doesn't mean, however, > that GPL and non-GPL libraries can legally be linked and then distributed > together. I think that we should also provide such a warning to users in the > license. We're OK, since it's always the user that performs the linking... and the linking is "undone" when Piper exits. So you can never distribute a "derived" (linked) work. You can then use any plugin you like... > I agree. Now, the question is GPL or LGPL ;-) I vote for GPL with the afore > mentioned exceptions. I vote for the LGPL for the PL though, because a non-free plugin will need to use classes from the PL (this is done at compile time). Otherwise, the GPL i OK with me. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Valin Universite de Sherbrooke - Genie Electrique valj01 at gel.usherb.ca