[gst-devel] gstreamer legal patch

[Brian Cameron]

Thomas:

> > > just a quick check - did you change the licenses so that the license
> > > inside the plug-in reflects the library license, or the plug-in license
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > It seems to me you change the fields to match the library license, while
> > > I seem to remember that we wanted the plug-in to reflect it's own code
> > > license, not the supporting lib.
> > > 
> > > If I'm reading this wrong please put me in my place.
> > 
> > In my discussions with Christian, the license field is supposed to 
> > mention the license of the supporting lib.  This is because all of the
> > code in gstreamer and gst-plugins *should* be LGPL, so it would be
> > relatively uninteresting to always report LGPL.  Also, the person
> > who runs gst-inspect is interested to know the ramifications of
> > using the plug-ins, not really the license of the plugin itself.
> > So my patch currently lists any plugin with a GPL dependency as
> > a "GPL" plugin.
> 
> I think originally the field was intended for the license of the plugin
> itself.  Note that GStreamer permits any license for the plugin itself,
> even proprietary.  I think this is exactly what the field wanted to
> describe in the past.
> 
> It does seem though that it might make sense to have the two license
> fields; otoh we should standardize on one for this, or find some other
> way around it.

We should talk about this.  I think from the end-user perspective, they
are most interested in knowing the ramifications of using the plugin.
And, therefore, knowing if the dependant library is GPL, or
whatever, is very important.

As you say, two license fields might make the most sense.  Or a sting
that indicates that a dependant library license exists, as I suggested.
"LGPL with GPL dependancy" or something.

Brian

Brian