[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Strong Copyleft licenses other than the GNU GPL family.

Le septidi 17 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Joel Rees a écrit :
> > The firs drawback is that it would be incompatible with GPL code and
> > libraries, and even possibly LGPL. That means libraries made using that
> > license can not be used from GPL code or with GPL libraries. Basically,
> > there is logically room for only one widely-adopted copyleft license.
> I'm curious as to your reasoning here.

Copyleft means: if your binary includes bits from my library, then it must
be distributed under the same license.

So, if the binary includes library_A that is under copyleft_license_A and
library_B that is under copyleft_license_B, the requirements can not be met

> > The second drawback is that it would probably have no legal standing.
> > Copyleft is based on copyright, and copyright controls distribution, nothing
> > else. In principle, it can not control API use, since there is no
> > distribution involved. In practice, you can argue that using an API requires
> > copying tiny bits of it in the calling program: function names, macro
> > expansion, etc. But this claim is weak: copyright requires originality, and
> > there is little room for originality in function names; and it is easy to
> > circumvent. The more restrictive you make your license, the stronger the
> > incentive to circumvent it.
> I'm not really seeing your reasoning here, either.

What part of it? That copyrighting API is legally weak? Do you think a judge
will sustain someone's alleged copyright on "create_window"?

That copyrighting API is easy to circumvent? Just wrap the library in a
trivial one, implementing a similar or specialized API with different
function names and structures. Then make a non-working version of the second
API that do not use the copyleft library at all.

That more coercive requirements yields more incentive to circumvent them?
Seems obvious.

> I would disagree (rather strongly) with at least some of what you seem
> to be saying, but I'm not really sure what you are intending to say
> here.

I am saying that looking for that kind of license is a waste of time. It
will not prevent bad guy from using the work, at worse force them to make a
little effort to twist the license. And it will severely annoy people who
insisting on respecting the licenses, like Debian packagers.


  Nicolas George

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: