Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
<email@example.com>(Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> Well, if we the author uses the source code of some other (original author),
> then original author may put whatever restrictions s/he wants on the license
> of the derived work. The problem with GPL'd library is that even in the case
> when second author does not intend to use the code, but merely follow the API
> of the library, i.e. *USE* the library in the only way it is intended to be
> used - then I can see no reason for the original author to insist on license
> restrictions. The code is clearly separated, noone claims credit for the work
> of others, etc.
This is simply not true. You can follow the API of the library if you
want, and link against a different implementation that is not
GPLed. The license does NOT apply to the API. Also, if your linking
against the library, you are indeed using the code.