Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
<firstname.lastname@example.org>(Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > 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?
But the GPL is again explicit in what vectors it's "virus", so to
speak, spreads. Calling something from the command line, or runnin it
thru the programs interpretor are not vectors. The type of
generalizing your attempting to do to prove your point is quite
specious in the light of the explicit nature of the GPL with regards
to it's licensing requirements. Your script is not "linked" aginst
bash, and your use of the "system" call to execute a program does not
entail linking against it. If you want to lodge a complaint against
the GPL, at least talk about the real issues involved with it's
licensing requirements, rather than trying to broaden it to include
examples which function purely in a rhetorical manner. There are
plenty of real problems with it, so why don't you stick to those.
Also, nothing is prohibiting types of use. It's making requirements on
licensing, and only in a very particular manner. You can use the code
for whatever endeavor you want, building nuclear weapons, or
performing logistical analysis for your genocidal campaign, or perhaps
to find a cure for a childhood ailment. You just have to license your
program in a particular manner if you link against the library.