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 both. > > 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. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature