LibRaw: possible license issues

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 11/26/2012 07:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:10PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> I am not familiar with gstreamer's internals, but AFAIIK, these
>> plugins aren't linked, but "dlopen'ed".
>>
>> Otherwise these "plugins" would not be "plugins" ;)
>
> The difference is an implementation detail, and so depending on it for
> legal purposes is a stretch.

Well, dlopen'ed modules/plugins aren't directly linked, i.e. there is 
only an indirect dependency. AFAICT (IANAL), this is what makes the 
legal key-difference. However, it likely would require to have a 
precedent at court to have this topic clarified, because I am also aware 
there are people who do not share my view ;)

> However, as far as *we're* concerned, I
> don't think there's a problem - everything we ship would be fine with
> GPLv3, and any additional combinations occur at the user's end. Upstream
> may care due to distributions with different policies, but I don't know
> that that's a discussion we need to have here.
Agreed.

Ralf