Re: FRR package in Debian violates the GPL licence

[Ansgar Burchardt <"Ansgar Burchardt"@43-1.org>]

Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> #include <log.h>
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the vague idea there can be complex legal details in that).
>
> However, assuming this "zlog_rotate" function is non-trivial and a
> copyrightable work, then the holder of the copyright in "zlog_rotate"
> /also/ has copyright in your work. For your work is based upon the
> "zlog_rotate" work - it /is/ an adaptation of it.
>
> I know there are many programmers who can't get their head around
> that, however I don't believe that's at all contraversial amongst
> lawyers.

So any source code using OpenSSL is a derivative work of OpenSSL and the
terms of the OpenSSL license would apply?  (Hah, no GPL with an
exception for linking OpenSSL will safe you now!)

Or any source code using the DirectX API is a derivative work of DirectX and
has to follow Microsoft terms for that?  Even though it might just use
the alternative Vulkan implementation on Linux?

What about source code implementing an proprietary API?  Would WINE be a
derivative work of Windows?

What about source code implementing an API described in a proprietary
document?  Would it be a derivative work of said document?

I think the view that using an API in any way in source code makes a
work a derivative work of the API provider is not realistic; for
binaries it might be more complicated, but we aren't discussing that
here.

Ansgar