Re: Strong Copyleft licenses other than the GNU GPL family.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas George
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.
--
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: