So the existence of a non-GPL alternate
implementation changes the
picture? Does the alternate need
to be functional vs simple stubs? What if
dynamically
linking against the alternate results in execution without
runtime
errors, but that doesn't actually accomplish
anything?
Well, if
your code does not actually need the linked
library to do anything...
why link against it at all?
Again, given the context of the article,
the point here is
that the API is not the work under copyright, the
implementation is. If your code demonstrably works to spec
when linked to the
alternate implementation, stub or not, it
is arguably not a derivative of the
GPL implementation. If
you require the GPL implementation to be present at
runtime
then that argument fails.
The main question of law is
the extent to which
copyright law gives the copyright owner the right to
make/enforce rules. Clearly there has to be a limit, the
question is where it
is.
That question cuts in more ways than one - do you have
the
right to require someone else to make a copy of some
third part's copyrighted
content without that third part
having any say in the matter?
JK
Finn
P.S. The original anon, I presume? Would it be a terrible
burden to
put some kind of nom de guerre in the comment if
expecting discussion - the
threading gets confusing quickly
among the anonymous. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
