Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu wrote:
> > > 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,
Not at all. Your "script" is parsed by bash, but not part of the
executable that has a process ID. When you link with a library, the
executable in memory contains both your code and code from the library.
The program "uses" them because it "owns" the data elements that those
routines opperate upon, but the "linked" routine is the only way to
manipulate those data elements. The program would fail if the shared
library were simply a shared block of memory containing the code which
could be executed by any program in memory.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether you include the library
via a "static" build, or use the shared library and only provide links at
compile time, at run time both look the same in memory, containing
elements of your code and the code contained in the library.
> or the same way I use the code of others when I do
> system("/usr/bin/a2ps -X .....");
Seriously? Are all your personal internal algorithms covered under the
GPL? Even then I'm not sure there would be a license problem, as you are
the individual spoken to by the license, not code whose interaction is
regulated by the license.
> 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?
>
You followed the API when you wrote the code, but when you compile it you
create something which requires the existance and incorporation of code
not written by you for its execution and operation. It is that aspect of
your relationship with this code that is regulated by its license.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: