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


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?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]