Big development in the GUI realm

[Maciej Mróz]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> My understanding is that what you propose is not valid.  An EXE
> that uses a GPL'd DLL must be distributed according to the
> terms of the GPL.  Were that not the case, the LGPL would not
> have been needed.
> 

I believe this is the case only in simple situation where gpl-ed dll is 
_required_ to run exe or exe has some specific support code to work with 
gpl-ed dll.

However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api 
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any 
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so 
is GPL compatible), plugin gets loaded into my software, significantly 
affecting its functionality (UI, operations, file formats, whatever).
3. Someone downloads the plugin and loads it into my program

They become effectively larger program, where one part is not GPL (which 
is exactly what GPL wants to avoid)
Am I bound by GPL? Certainly not, I did not sign or agree to it in way.
Is the plugin programmer bound by GPL in a way that prohibits writing 
GPL plugin to non-GPL program. Not sure, but I don't think so - plugin 
is based on API which is public domain
Is end user violating GPL? In the end this is when combining happens. I 
don't think so, in my understanding GPL only affects only the 
distribution - downloading the plugin means ability to obtain source 
code, but does not limit what you do with source as long as you do not 
redistribute any derivative works.

I think it does not really matter if plugin programmer and main program 
programmer are the same person/organization or not ... it might however 
get tricky if GPL plugin is distributed as part of main program.

Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead 
of simple "yes/no" answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...

regards,
Maciej Mróz