> Nathan Carl Summers writes:
> > Gimp plugins do not link with the Gimp and thus do not fall under Gimp's
> > licence. Gimp plugins do link with libgimp*, which is licensed under the
> > LGPL.
(note that Nathan's analysis is correct but incomplete, I believe)
> Are there any licensing issues, BTW, with the pspi plug-in? (The GIMP > plug-in that interfaces to Photoshop plugins.) It is currently > licensed under the GPL. (I am the copyright holder, so I could change > its license if necessary.) The Photoshop plugins that it is able to > load (as DLLs) are of course in general totally proprietary > software. Is there any problem with this? (I don't distribute any > Photoshop plugins.)
I can't confidently say, myself. Technically in this case it's the end-user that is doing the 'linking' of the GPL and non-GPL code so you are personally not responsible for anything but having somewhat ill-licensed the pspi plugin for its intended use. :) But, my GPL interpretation gets fuzzy here because no-one is then simply redistributing the result of linking pspi and the Photoshop plugin, and the GPL is generally concerned with distribution rights, not private usage. (But then one part of me says 'so why would a non-GPL program depending on a GPL shared lib ever be a problem?' and things spiral down The GNU Ambiguity Vortex again.)
But to me, your plugin sounds much more license-comfortable as LGPL (its entire nature, really, being that it links to foreign-licensed code).
--Adam (NAL) -- Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ adam@xxxxxxxx http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3 That gum you like is going to come back in style.
