"Licensed" codecs

[Pavel Rosenboim]

Alan Cox wrote:

>>>Consult a lawyer. The definition of 'derivative' is complicated to say the least. 
>>>For actual GPL code the GPL itself deliberately takes a "free nor not at all"
>>>approach.
>>
>>There exist non-GPLd kernel modules, though (NVIDIA drivers,etc...). Do
>>you want to say that they are illegal?
> 
> 
> As I said consult a lawyer. A body of people including the FSF certainly
> believe they are.
> 

Well, if we define 'derivative' in SCO way, then plugins and kernel
modules must be GPLd :)

Seriously, I had and impression that only static linking "enforces" GPL
and dynamically linked code doesn't. Especially in the case of
loaded-on-demand plugins. But IANAL either.

Pavel.