[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries

> > 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.

Yes, the same way I use the code of bash when running my *bash* script,
or the same way I use the code of others when I do 
system("/usr/bin/a2ps -X .....");
I just follow the API (correct options for the proper invocation of 
binary in this case). And if a program prohibits this kind of use - it is 
NOT DFSG-compliant. Why would we make an exception for a library?


Alex Y.
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+

Reply to: