Re: License with the following characteristics?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of licensing a program under the GPL, but I dislike the 
> FSF's overly restrictive concept that 'dynamic linking is modification'.
> 
> I want my program (and any derivative works) to be allowed to use 
> *accurately documented and published* interfaces to proprietary 
> (or any other) libraries or programs.  Dynamic linking should be allowed
> in this situation, as should RPC, pipes, etc. etc.  (The interface 
> should allow for free implementations of it, although they don't need 
> to actually exist at the time.  Its documentation doesn't need to be 
> written by anyone in particular; it could have been reverse-engineered,
> even.)
> 
> I *don't* want to allow a derivative of my program to be linked with a 
> proprietary program through secret, undocumented, or unpublished 
> interfaces.

If it is in your program, and you can get the sources for the program,
then, by definition, it isn't secret anymore.

> Is there a good licence to put on my program which will clearly allow 
> exactly this?  Can it be done with GPL-plus-exceptions?
> 
> This is the line I would draw regarding RPC vs. linking, etc.  It also 
> renders the OS exception unnecessary.  I suspect other people may agree 
> with me on this line, so it might be a generally useful piece of 
> information.

I think the closest to what you want is the LGPL.  Is there something
in particular that you don't like about the LGPL?

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu