Re: Strong Copyleft licenses other than the GNU GPL family.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Mario Castelán Castro
<marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> wrote:
> El 05/11/15 a las 03:27, Nicolas George escribió:
>>
>> Le quartidi 14 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit :
>>>
>>> By strong Copyleft I mean a free software license that requires "derivate
>>> works" (as determined by Copyright law) to be free software (as in
>>> freedom),
>>> including works that are derivatives by making use of the Copylefted work
>>> through an API.
>>
>>
>> This kind of license, if it exists or if someone invents it, would have
>> two
>> serious drawbacks. That may explain why you do not find one.
>
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> I found the IBM public license. _Can somebody else point me to a license
> that is strong Copyleft other than the GNU GPL family?._
>
> You are right regarding API usage itself.
He's only sort-of-right, but, then
> What I meant to say is *dynamic
> linking*.
it appears that you at least partially recognize that.
> I am looking for a strong Copyleft licenses other than the GNU
> GPL, strong enough to apply Copyleft in case of dynamic linking (as far as
> Copyright law allows this provision, which there seems to be some dispute
> about, especially regarding Linux modules).
>
Have you read the gnu.org pages on license compatibility? And their
definitions of "free" and their own interpretations of the (GNU) GPL?
(Remember that wikipedia and such are less authoritative on this
subject than the gnu.org pages and the fsf.org pages. And if you need
more authoritative than that, you need a lawyer who understands these
questions. The opensource.org pages (OSI) are not more authoritative,
just a different point of view. And two points of view are still not
really enough, here. Not because RMS is wrong but because it takes all
sorts of people to keep this world functioning.)
And that list of true copyleft licenses on gnu.org, do they still have
it? Is it not useful for you for some reason that I am not seeing yet?
--
Joel Rees
Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
Reply to: