From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,565d6a6c6ff7cb37,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-01 11:36:04 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "David Botton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: GPL and Plug-INs and XML\Ada Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:35:38 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 988742163 61589 137.194.161.2 (1 May 2001 18:36:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 18:36:03 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-pair-Authenticated: 63.161.15.130 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7071 Date: 2001-05-01T14:35:38-04:00 If a person wrote an executable that had a plug-in architecture, would it be possible then to include GPL'd plug-ins with out the application becoming GPL'd? For example, If I wrote an application that had a closed lic. and it allowed features to be plugged-in. One such group of features was for file "import". So, I throw together a GPL'd plug-in that included XML\Ada and dropped that dll in the dir and it is picked up at run time by the closed lic. application. This would be different than: I write an XML COM object that uses XML\Ada and now my XML COM object is of course GPL'd, but closed lic. programs (say in VB or Ada) could now use my XML COM object to access XML. I could see where this case would be problematic (although I question that also), but the previous cases seems to be no problem. Would including a GPL'd COM / Corba object virus to my app and make it GPL'd? Thoughts? David Botton