So you mean I should create the class based on UADE source, build it, test and then release the source code only? Then there is an assumption that some user will compile the sources and use the class. It means such user is breaking GPL, isn't it?

Even considering this "source only" distribution, there are some even worse issues. Let's think about commercial sound editor "A", which is able to use Reggae. If some user, who built hypothetical "uade2.demuxer" class, will run "A" and then load a music module to it using "uade2.demuxer", he effectively dynamically links GPL-ed code with commercial code. Who breaks GPL then? I've seen some interpretations, that author of "A" is guilty (!!!), because he technically allows of dynamic linking of GPL code to his closed source application. It may make authors of non-GPL applications to be affraid of using Reggae. LGPL would solve this, but unfotunately essential part of UADE (namely CPU/Paula emulation code) is on plain GPL.

Considering all that I think that the whole proposal is invalid. Someone can always port UADE2 as a standalone tool, which poses no legal problems.



[ Edited by Krashan on 2010/3/11 11:48 ]