Doesn't make the DShow filter involve linking libmad with core MS
libraries?
Isn't this illegal under the terms of the GPL?
Why should it? I never saw anything in the GPL licence what would disallow that.
BTW using any non-GPL compiler will have non-GPL libs linked in it. This regardless whether it is DShow or anything else. GPL doesn't say anything about that. If it did, you couldn't use GPL with *any* non-GPL compiler.
And we all know that is no issue. :-)
Armin
armin.gerritsen@philips.com wrote:
Doesn't make the DShow filter involve linking libmad with core MS
libraries?
Isn't this illegal under the terms of the GPL?
Why should it? I never saw anything in the GPL licence what would disallow that.
BTW using any non-GPL compiler will have non-GPL libs linked in it. This regardless whether it is DShow or anything else. GPL doesn't say anything about that. If it did, you couldn't use GPL with *any* non-GPL compiler.
I think you're confused here. GPL softwares can be linked with whatever other library (not software) you want... Proprietary softwares can't be linked with GPL softwares (that's why they had to create LGPL). Even LGPL softwares can't be linked with GPL libraries, otherwise MAD would be in LAME for a long time.
By providing MAD as a DirectShow filter, any proprietay software can use MAD as the preferred MP3 decoder. They couldn't do that before. So it's a way to get around the GPL licence for them. Which IMO is going against the philosophy of MAD to be GPL (and not LGPL, BSD, whatever). Even if it makes more people happy (including me).
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Steve Lhomme wrote:
armin.gerritsen@philips.com wrote:
Doesn't make the DShow filter involve linking libmad with core MS
libraries?
Isn't this illegal under the terms of the GPL?
Why should it? I never saw anything in the GPL licence what would disallow that.
BTW using any non-GPL compiler will have non-GPL libs linked in it. This regardless whether it is DShow or anything else. GPL doesn't say anything about that. If it did, you couldn't use GPL with *any* non-GPL compiler.
I think you're confused here. GPL softwares can be linked with whatever other library (not software) you want... Proprietary softwares can't be linked with GPL softwares (that's why they had to create LGPL). Even LGPL softwares can't be linked with GPL libraries, otherwise MAD would be in LAME for a long time.
To be more precise, GPL code/library can be linked with other code/application using whatever license. The GPL only targets -*distribution*- of such applications. In other words, if you pick a proprietary application and a GPL extension module, you are perfectly allowed to use them together as long as you keep it for yourself and don't distribute it.
Nicolas
To be more precise, GPL code/library can be linked with other code/application using whatever license. The GPL only targets -*distribution*- of such applications. In other words, if you pick a proprietary application and a GPL extension module, you are perfectly allowed to use them together as long as you keep it for yourself and don't distribute it.
OK, but this is rarely the case (not in this one actually). Since as it's not distributed we (the general public) never know...
-
armin.gerritsen＠philips.com -
Nicolas Pitre -
Steve Lhomme