GPL License Effect on Plugins - Question & Discussion GPL许可的影响插件-问题与讨论

6 Responses to “GPL License Effect on Plugins - Question & Discussion” 6回应“ GPL许可的影响插件-问题与讨论”

1. Kevin Dangoor 凯文dangoor Says:说：
   June 1st, 2006 at 10:42 am 2006年6月1日在上午10时42分

   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.据我所知，只要富杜巴并不包括和分发任何GPL源代码，是没有出路的GPL的是涉及与富杜巴本身。 Just because someone else can choose to download and use GPLed code with Foo Bah cannot impact Foo Bah itself.只是因为别人可以选择下载和使用gpled代码与富杜巴不能影响富杜巴本身。

2. Andrew Shuttlewood Says: 郑家富shuttlewood说：
   June 1st, 2006 at 10:49 am 2006年6月1日在上午10时49分

   Surely by using the interface that the application exposes it is a derivative work?当然，使用介面的应用，暴露了它是一种衍生金融工具的工作呢？

   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.说的论点的GPL -即以书面一g pl'd界面，你正在建设一个衍生金融工具的工作-无论分配的规定。 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.当然，这可以去颇远-例如，一些只是所谓的海湾合作委员会，可说是衍生作品，海湾合作委员会，如果它的目的是围绕它。

   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.我认为在总体上是明智的，以避免发展的外挂程式gpl'd申请，除非你愿意GPL的插件，或者授权许可证。

3. Angsuman Chakraborty 日由Angsuman Chakraborty Says:说：
   June 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pm 2006年6月1日在下午2时01分

   @Andrew @郑家富

   GPL license states that - “You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. GPL许可的国家-“你是不须接受本许可，由于你没有签署它。 However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.”然而，什么都没有授予您许可，以修改或分发程序或其衍生作品“ 。

   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 .如果富杜巴不接受GPL许可，这是他的权利，因为他还没有签署它，他并没有获得发行权gpl'ed程序或其衍生作品 。

   The key points are - derivative works and scope of GPL license.其要点是-衍生作品和范围G PL许可发布。

   The definition of derivative work is under the copyright law.的定义，衍生金融工具的工作是根据版权法。

   According to the Copyright Act, a derivative work is根据版权法，衍生金融工具的工作是

   a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.工作后，基于一个或多个既存的工程，如翻译，音乐剧的安排，戏剧， fictionalization ，中影版本，录音，艺术再现， abridgment ，缩合，或任何其他形式，其中一项工作可能会改写，转化，或改装。

   A derivative work usually involves a type of transformation, such as the transformation of a novel into a motion picture. 1衍生金融工具的工作通常涉及的一类转型，如转型成为一种新型的一项议案，图片。 In the computer industry, a second version of a software program is generally considered a derivative work based upon the earlier version.在计算机行业，第二个版本的一个软件程序，是被普遍认为是衍生金融工具为基础的工作后，先前的版本。

   via通过

   Also the也 GPL GPL的 license states that:许可的国家：
   “Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.” “以外的活动复制，分发和修改不包括在本许可证的，他们不属于其范围” 。

   In wikipedia some rule of thumbs are defined:在维基百科的一些法治的大拇指的定义是：

   If the original software was designed to accept plug-ins or drivers using a defined mechanism, such a driver or plug-in does not form a derived work.如果原来的软件的目的是接受插件或司机使用的定义机制，例如驱动程序或外挂在并不构成一种衍生的工作。

   link链接

   Looking forward to hear your thoughts and Kevin’s.期待着听到您的想法和凯文的。

4. Angsuman Chakraborty 日由Angsuman Chakraborty Says:说：
   June 1st, 2006 at 2:07 pm 2006年6月1日在下午2时07分

   Technology Law offices of Rosenlaw & Einschlag has this to say on derivative works:科技法办事处rosenlaw ＆ einschlag已是这样说对衍生作品：

   Here’s how I would decide in the edge cases that I described above:这里的如何，我决定在边缘的情况下，我上文所述：

   · The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program.主要标志有否新的计划是一项衍生金融工具的工作是否源代码的原始程式是使用，修改，翻译或以其他方式改变以任何方式建立新的计划。 If not, then I would argue that there is not a derivative work.如果不是，那么我会认为是不是一个衍生金融工具的工作。

   · The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs.意义衍生金融工具的工作将不会扩大到包括软件创建链接到图书馆的程式设计，并打算被用来作为图书馆的程序。 When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.当一家公司发布了科学的子程序图书馆，或图书馆的物体，例如，人们谁，只是使用图书馆，未修改的，也许没有，甚至看源代码，都没有从而创造衍生作品图书馆。

   · Derivative works are not going to encompass plug-ins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from other off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs.衍生作品不打算涵盖了插件和设备驱动程序是经过特别设计，挂钩从其他场外-大陆架，未修改，程序。 If Linux is designed to accept separately-designed plug-in programs, you don’t create a derivative work by merely running such a program under Linux, even if you have to look at the Linux source code to learn how to do so.如果Linux是旨在接受分开设计的外挂程序，你不创造一个衍生工具的工作，只是在运行这样的程序在Linux下，即使你要看看在Linux的源代码，以了解如何这样做。

   · In most cases we shouldn’t care how the linkage between separate programs was technically done, unless that fact helps to determine whether the creators of the programs designed them with some apparent common understanding of what a derivative work would look like.在大多数情况下，我们不应该如何照顾之间的联系，单独的程序在技术上做了，除非这一事实有助于确定是否创作者的设计的程式，他们与一些明显的共同理解什么是衍生工具的工作会这个样子。 We should consider subtle market-based factors as indicators of intent, such as whether the resulting program is being sold as an “improved” or “enhanced” version of the original, or whether the original was designed and advertised to be improvable “like a library.”我们应该考虑的微妙基于市场因素，作为指标的意图，例如是否由此产生的计划是出售作为“改善”或“强化”版本的原始，或是否原设计及刊登广告，必须改进“像图书馆“ 。

5. Donald Smith 唐纳德史密斯 Says:说：
   June 2nd, 2006 at 7:12 am 2006年6月2日在上午07时12分

   “I am not a lawyer” “我不是律师”

   They key point here is that these are all copyright issues.他们在这里的关键点是，这些都是版权问题。 If you do not distribute or modify any GPL code, then how could you be breaking any copyright rules?如果您不分发或修改任何GPL源代码，那么你怎么可以打破任何版权规则？

   - Don -唐

6. Angsuman Chakraborty 日由Angsuman Chakraborty Says:说：
   June 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 am 2006年6月2日在上午10时41分

   @Donald @司长

   That’sa very good point. that'sa非常好的点。 I have to agree with you on that.我同意你这一点。

   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.在这一点上看来，我很清楚，任何外挂程式的GPL软件不属于GPL的，特别是如果是没有发运与gpl'ed产品。 Yay. yay 。

Looking forward to hear your thoughts.期待着听到您的想法。