You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Disclaimer: I am Not A Lawyer. But I do have a good understanding of FLOSS, licenses and GPL.
The plugin is basically "linking" GPLv3 code to non-GPL compatible code (Lightroom). Therefor, implicitely, any third party shipping the 500pxPublisher plug-in would be in violation of the GPLv3, which would be copyright infringement.
While it could be argued that this is not the case, it is not nice.
The LGPLv3 was actually designed with that use case in mind and would preserve the copyleft nature of the license (the requirement to provide the source code) while allowing to "link" the code to Lightroom.
Other options would include using a non copyleft license like Apache v2, MIT or BSD.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
TL;DR use LGPLv3 instead of GPLv3
The long version.
Disclaimer: I am Not A Lawyer. But I do have a good understanding of FLOSS, licenses and GPL.
The plugin is basically "linking" GPLv3 code to non-GPL compatible code (Lightroom). Therefor, implicitely, any third party shipping the 500pxPublisher plug-in would be in violation of the GPLv3, which would be copyright infringement.
While it could be argued that this is not the case, it is not nice.
The LGPLv3 was actually designed with that use case in mind and would preserve the copyleft nature of the license (the requirement to provide the source code) while allowing to "link" the code to Lightroom.
Other options would include using a non copyleft license like Apache v2, MIT or BSD.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: