Question on how to handled "GPL with exceptions" in a package review.

[Tom Lane]

Christopher Blizzard <blizzard at redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:41 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> both have the same additional clause.  The text of the additional clause is:
>> 
>> Fluendo hereby grants permission for anyone under a valid license distributing
>> Fluendo's non-GPL compatible GStreamer plugins to distribute and use them
>> together with GStreamer and Elisa. This permission is above and beyond the
>> permissions granted by the GPL license by which Elisa is covered. If you
>> modify this code, you may extend this permission to your version of the code,
>> but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
>> exception statement from your version.

> What surprises me is that the grant only applies to Fluendo's plugins
> and not anyone to plugins that are created by anyone else.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that this is really a
relaxation of the license for the plugins, and not so much for either
GStreamer or Elisa.  So naturally it falls to Fluendo (owner of the
plugins) to do that.  For a hypothetical non-GPL plugin X, it would
be up to X's owner to say "yeah, you can distribute this with GStreamer
all you want, even though it's not GPL".

			regards, tom lane