Licensing as plugin

[noknok]

We have developed a multimedia application which in and by itself is fully functional. It streams, catalogs, transcodes, etc. It is not open source, but it is free, no buying, etc. Just download and use.

We have developed a plugin architecture whereby plugins can be loaded to add additional functionality to the program.

eg: Windows Media Encoder, Apple DSS, and others, including VLC.

So while the application runs and does many things, it can be enhanced by enabling or adding plugins. The plugin architecture is open, meaning anyone can develop plugins for the application. The application is .NET based, and the plugin architecture is merely an interface you inherit. So in the case of the VLC plugin, we merely inherit the predefined plugin interface, and then wrote a bunch code around the the .NET wrapper to allow use/communication of VLC if user has it installed.

Question 1: My open sourcing (GPL) the code to the plugin, is that sufficient to meet the GPL requirements. As the application itself is not dependent on VLC, but having a plugin for VLC is definitely a plus.

Question 2: Can VLC install itself be included with the install of our application, so if a person so wishes to install VLC they can?

I appreciate any feedback in regards to this,

Thanks
Shawn

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

In my understanding, you need to license under GP whatever is a derivative work of the GPL code (VLC). So I'd guess the answer to the first question is YES, provided it is possible for your sublicensees to recompile the plugin source code (i.e. it shouldn't depend on any proprietary internal stuff of yours).

If the application still works (to a meaninful extent) without the VLC plugin, as you say, then I would further guess that the answer to the second question is also YES.

But when there is legal doubt, the safest answer lies in real legal advice (which I'm afraid you won't find on this forum).

[noknok]

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. Our first interest is to gain the input/feedback from current maintainers of the project. As the community interaction is important as well as their views. Attorneys can make cases for and against anything.

So we want to make sure our "layman" interpretation is in line with the developers themselves.

Shawn

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

I think I have the same understanding as Rémi here, for what my opinion is worth.

[dropvox]

We're also developing an application that works fine and it's totally functional without the use of VLCKit. This application its not open source but it's going to be free to download and use. However we would like to expand its functionality and video file support by letting the user make use of VLCKit if they want to.

I understand, as the terms of the GPL license says, I must open source the code of the plugin based on VLCKit that my application uses, for compilations or modifications by other people. However, as I read above, I'm don't need to open source the main application, right?

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

I understand the same.

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

It's not that simple. You need to open-source the plugin as a whole. The plugin probably uses stuff from your application, and that stuff would have to be open-sourced too, with the exception of "operating system" components (I don't suppose your app is part fo the OS).

[dropvox]

Thanks a bunch for the answers!

In our case, the plugin doesn't need any functionality from the main application. The only thing that gets it's the file path to play. The rest of the functionality is on the plugin itself

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Or you can help us relicense

[dropvox]

Hehe, not sure what you mean with "help us relicense". My english is not really good