|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
| The whole idea that I could somehow infringe someone's copyright by writing code
the way they told me to simply because someone might link against
their copyrighted library has always sounded absurd to me. I think it is a blot
on the whole free-software industry that this copyright-by-possible-linking
approach was ever taken. It seems to me that it is exactly the same attempt to
copyright APIs that Oracle wants. I certainly hope
copyright-by-possible-linking goes away with the Oracle suit. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JK Finn on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
AFAIK, the derivative work is not being created by linking
against an API, it is being created by linking against an
implementation of that API. The GPL clauses only come into
play when the only implementation of the API is under GPL or
when that is the implementation required for some other
reason.
Somehow there are people (like the poster before me) who
don't see this as reasonable exit clause, but to me it seems
like a rather simple way to make sure the development stays
public: if you don't or can't accept the licensing rules set
by the copyright owner of the library, you are free to
contact them for a separate arrangement or to roll your own
implementation and use that instead. If the reason to do the
latter was ideological, please make sure to publish your own
work under a more permissive license.
But IANAL and so forth.
--
JK Finn[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
