Illegal to load plugins with GPL licence, in music programs that isn't open source

[whyterabbyt]

It suddenly dawned on me that GPL licenced plugins may be illegal for usage in non open source audio hosts.

No, the GPL only applies to people redistributing software. It does not apply to end users. To use GPL software, you do not need to agree to the license. For example it is perfectly ok to get GPL software, modify it, keep those modifications secret, as long as you do not redistribute the software.

Closed source host developers do not redistribute any GPL code, so the GPL does not apply to them.

GPL plugin developers need to abide by the GPL for any libraries they use. But they do not distribute the host, so the host does not need to abide by the GPL.

The only case where the GPL could come in to effect is where a GPL host is distributed with closed source plugins or vice versa. I think Harrison Mix Bus is like this, it might be possible to argue that it and it's plugins are one program.

FigBug, the OP has claimed (and is basically still claiming) that the developer of a closed-source host has to adhere to the GPL if that host loads a GPL'd plugin. He's justifying that on the basis that the plugin and host would be 'one program' so the GPL for the plugin would have to apply to the host.
Would you mind providing your opinion on that?

[Urs]

Oh the drama.

"Dear AVID, I linked a GPL'd library to a plug-in and ran it in Pro Tools. Please provide your source code immediately!"

[juha_p]

...
He's justifying that on the basis that the plugin and host would be 'one program'
...

Just to educate myself, if host and plug-in are running in same (one) process (as it usually does), does that mean it is "one program" or "two separate programs"?

[mystran]

It suddenly dawned on me that GPL licenced plugins may be illegal for usage in non open source audio hosts. If these plugs would be using a LGPL licence it would be ok, but now it's not legal. But it would probably only affect anything if the music program was shipped with GPL licenced plugins, and would force them to not include them any more.

I don't think there is a problem. GPL doesn't really restrict use, it restricts how you can distribute stuff... so it's fine for an end-user to load a GPL plugin into a closed source host, it just wouldn't be fine to distribute the combination.

[FigBug]

FigBug, the OP has claimed (and is basically still claiming) that the developer of a closed-source host has to adhere to the GPL if that host loads a GPL'd plugin. He's justifying that on the basis that the plugin and host would be 'one program' so the GPL for the plugin would have to apply to the host.
Would you mind providing your opinion on that?

OP is incorrect. The only person that has to adhere to the GPL is the person distributing the software covered by the GPL.

There are no grounds the author of KoolGPLPlugin could sue Steinberg/Bitwig/Ableton/etc. The terms of the GPL are irrelevant if the GPL doesn't even apply. And since Steinberg/Bitwig/Ableton/etc. have never seen/touched/distributed the KoolGPLPlugin, they are in no way bound by the terms of the GPL.

Everybody arguing if the Host + plugin are one program or not are completely missing the point. Before you can argue the specifics of the terms of the GPL, first to need to argue that the GPL even applies. (Which it does not).

[FigBug]

...
He's justifying that on the basis that the plugin and host would be 'one program'
...

Just to educate myself, if host and plug-in are running in same (one) process (as it usually does), does that mean it is "one program" or "two separate programs"?

Hard to say and could be argued both ways. Since plugin APIs are open standards, I can write my plugin without ever using your host. If two pieces of software are developed in complete isolation, how can they be 'one program'?

However, my plugin can not run without a host. Therefore it is not a complete piece of software. A host + plugin join to form 'one program'.

I think the specifics would need to be argued in court. The closer the plugin is tied to the software, the more likely they are one program. If we looked at software other than DAWs/VSTs, could the host function without the plugin? Are there other hosts the plugin can be used with? If the answer to both of those is no, then they are definitely 'one program'. Yes, maybe not.

[Borbolactic]

Gift economy seems like the way to go. That way, we're likely doing less of those 'legal' floor-diagrammed covid-esque social-distancing-while-we-shop-as-disempowered-self-domesticates footsie dances with software and practically anything else in this musical chairs economy while its chairs slowly disappear.

Qualifier: I have not read the entire thread. 'u^ <-- signature right side up winkie

[Jeff McClintock]

To confuse everyone more:
In the confines of your own PC, it's legal to mix any software with any type of license that you wish.

Where the GPL kicks in is when you distribute combined works. e.g. you ship a closed-source DAW to customers for example with an included plugin which is GPL. This is not allowed.

[mystran]

Where the GPL kicks in is when you distribute combined works. e.g. you ship a closed-source DAW to customers for example with an included plugin which is GPL. This is not allowed.

I'm not a lawyer, but even this isn't quite so clear cut. If you're simply bundling some proprietary and GPL stuff together into the same distribution, that's something Linux distributions have always done and that's almost certainly fine. So I think it's important to considered whether the GPL software has become "part of" the proprietary software or whether it's just bundled together for convenience.

GPL is all about protecting the end-users rights to modify the software and distribute said modifications to the benefit of others. If we have a plugin that loads in any host implementing some API that can be considered "standard" or "open" then for all intents and purposes I think we can treat the plugin as "standalone software" and the plugin API as platform. GPL makes some explicit exceptions for platforms, which is why you can distribute Windows binaries of GPL software.

As far as I can see, the only real "gray area" are the plugin SDKs if they have proprietary licenses that restrict the end-users rights under GPL. A generic plugin does not depend on any given host, but it might depend on a proprietary SDK. If the user cannot obtain said SDK, then the user cannot recompile the plugin and therefore is prevented from exercising their rights under GPL.

But... yeah... the GPL is very explicit that whatever you do on your own computer GPL doesn't care... it's only when you distribute software, you must make sure that those that receive the software you distribute have the same rights to modify and redistribute (and whatever else GPL requires; I highly suggest people actually read the text, because even if it's fairly long, it's actually very clear as far as legalese goes).

[kerfuffle]

Even if loading a GPL plug-in into a proprietary host as a shared library would be against the license, loading the plug-in out-of-process would be OK. The GPL does not restrict proprietary software from including GPL'd binaries if they run in their own process (as mystran said).

[whyterabbyt]

To confuse everyone more:
In the confines of your own PC, it's legal to mix any software with any type of license that you wish.

Where the GPL kicks in is when you distribute combined works. e.g. you ship a closed-source DAW to customers for example with an included plugin which is GPL. This is not allowed.

The underlying issue there is still whether DAW+plugins constitutes 'combined works'. If the DAW works perfectly fine without those plugins, then that's not a given. If the plugins work with any host, not just that one, then that's not a given. Not legally.

Yes, the FSF would like that to be so for anything and everything GPL but that doesnt make it so.
And as Ive said before in this thread, if the developer of the API for the plugin standard doesnt legally insist that both DAW and plugin become a combined work by use of that API, then that's that; there's no other party has a legitimate say that it does.

[DaveClark]

It suddenly dawned on me that GPL licenced plugins may be illegal for usage in non open source audio hosts. If these plugs would be using a LGPL licence it would be ok, but now it's not legal.

<snip>

What's problematic in this situation is that steinberg actually knows what plugin makers are that actually has a written agreement with them. Making it highly immoral for them to actually load plugins using the GPLv3 licence, that they know is illegal to use in their non open source software's.

The situation under discussion is user merely executes proprietary host to load GPLv3-licensed plugin.

A few days ago, I easily found the following:

"The Foundations of the GPL

Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have:

the freedom to use the software for any purpose ...."

Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html


From GPLv3, 2. Basic Permissions:

"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program."

Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html


From GPLv3, 10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients:

"You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License."

Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html


Conclusions:

1) It is permissible by GPLv3 for a user to load a GPLv3-licensed plugin to be run under a proprietary host as a specific example covered by the explicit phrase "unlimited permission," and such use is consistent with "any purpose," a foundational principle of GPL.

2) Steinberg is not required to enforce provisions of GPLv3 between plugin developers and users nor between host developers and users.

3) Under GPLv3, there is nothing that the user can do by merely executing a program for which Steinberg can be held either legally or morally responsible.


Issue of "one program":

During execution by a user (the situation under discussion), there is by definition of “propagate” and “convey” in GPLv3 no propagation or conveyance of works, so the existence or not of “one program” during execution is immaterial (makes no difference).

It would have been more obvious that the quotes from FSF in this thread were nothing more than red herrings if FSF would have acknowledged, in those passages, that the case of mere usage (execution) of a program is an exceptional situation with complete freedom, as is acknowledged in GPLv3.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

GPL is a sect.

[stoopicus]

Also, in case you didnt know how plugins work, its not Steinberg who initiate the loading of a plugin, its the plugin user. Its not illegal to provide a mechanism for loading plugins that conform to an API you wrote.
So, since this pertains to copyright law, the resolution of 'illegal' would be that the creator of the plugin would be responsible for taking an infracting end-user to court for breach of copyright by the act of loading code that only worked as a plugin because of use of a GPL'd API into an application designed to host plugins using that API.
Im not sure many plugin developers would want to win that case, and Im not sure they'd keep their license to derive from Steinberg's code in the first place.

This seems extremely important to me, otherwise a user could just LD_PRELOAD some GPL'd "plugin" to *any* application and cause an infraction. Which is obviously stupid AF.

AFAICT the terms of the GPL in the VST API only impact the distribution of Steinberg's software, and are selectively enforceable by Steinberg. They get to decide who is violating their copyright. They are not responsible for enforcing or even knowing about the copyrights of users of their API that develop other software.

[Tone2 Synthesizers]

This all seems to be very weird and I am not sure if this is really intended by Steinberg. But what would it mean in practise?

- Could Steinberg sue competing DAW developers as they allow the loading of GPL licesed plugins? There is no flag in the plugin format that tells the DAW if a plugin is GPL or not. A DAW does not know this. So to be 100% safe a non-Steinberg-DAW could not be allowed any VST plugin?

- Or is it the end user that would have to check for each plugin individually if it was created with GPL before he loads it in a non-Setinberg DAW?

- Do the DAW developers need to add a passage in the license agreement where the user has to agree that he will not load GPL plugins?