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