Re: Pixbuf loader for jpeg2000?

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 20:19, Sander Vesik wrote:

> Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> > For an independently installed loader, my personal feeling is that if
> > you write a independently installed pixbuf loader that:
> > 
> >  A) Uses only symbols from the publically installed GTK+ headers
> >  B) Does not incorporate code from GTK+
> >  C) Is not written as a paraphrase of code in GTK+
> >
> > Then it is not a derived work of GTK+, and thus could be under any
> > license, even a proprietary license. 
> 
> 
> wouldn't this kind of development be covered by lgpl anyways?

Well, of course, what I'm talking about here is what the
LGPL covers...

Having GTK+ load a dynamically loaded module that extends GTK+'s
functionality is not obviously on the face of it the same situation
as an application that uses GTK+; what I'm saying above is that
my opinion is that the provisions of section 5 of the LGPL *do* 
apply here. 

And you get the further question of whether it is permissable
to distribute a GPL application (like say eog), using GTK+ with 
a gdk-pixbuf loader module that is not GPL compatible. 

The argument that this is OK is fairly strong in the case where:

 - The module can be used with other GTK+-based programs; it
   is clearly not a derivative work of the GPL application.

 - The operation of the GPL application doesn't depend on the
   non-GPL-compatible module in any essential way .... it
   just extends the application to be able to handle one more
   file format.

Regards,
					Owen