Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Rhythmbox and our new MP3 plugin

[William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu>]

Hi,

Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> "The Totem project hereby grant permission for non-gpl compatible GStreamer
> plugins to be used and distributed together with GStreamer and Totem. This
> permission are above and beyond the permissions granted by the GPL license
> Totem is covered by."

Not a lawyer, but, shouldn't this say "The Totem authors" instead of 
"The Totem project" for it to be legally valid?  Unless, it is a Totem 
Project that holds the copyrights.

Should it say "GPL incompatible" instead of "non-GPL compatible"?

Should probably also add a statement that this software or a derived 
work can be distributed with or without this exception.

Is there currently a distributor who is shipping Totem (or other 
software with a similar exception) with a GPL incompatible plugin?  Is 
there a distributor who has specific plans to ship Rhythmbox with a GPL 
incompatible plugin?

Can you please explain how this isn't in direct conflict with section 6 
of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, I think this will make Rhythmbox GPL incompatible. 
This means that we can't link to any GPL code unless it carries a 
similar exception or it has a more permissive license (eg. LGPL).  If 
not, why?

Thanks,
Jon