❦ 18 mars 2019 15:45 +00, Paul Jakma <paul@jakma.org>:
>> Being merely dependent on third-party code is not, to my
>> understanding, sufficient to be considered derived code.
>
> If code which is written to depend explicitly and heavily on the APIs
> and frameworks provided by GPL is /not/ considered subject to the GPL,
> but 'mere' 'aggregration', one would wonder why the LGPL would ever
> have been drafted. One would wonder why readline was ever an issue for
> the BSDs. etc., etc.
IMO because the definition of derived work comes from binary linking
(static or dynamic). There are libreadline alternatives licensed under a
BSD-like license (like libedit or libeditline). There are
API-compatible, not ABI-compatible. If you link the program with
libreadline, you have to distribute the result under the GPL. If you
link it with libedit, you don't have to. The source code of the program
is exactly the same. Is it GPL or is it not?
The API exposed by Quagga could be provided by another project using
another license.
> I will stick with the views of those qualified solicitors, over the
> view of a software engineer, at least on legal matters.
Maybe these views could be published somewhere.
--
Let the machine do the dirty work.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature