The engine is a integral and needed part of a car, yet the engine design and production is not necessarely part of the rest of the car production (In very old times, companies like mercedez built only carriages, benz built engines + chassis, eventually they decided to merge to produce both together, something like that if i remember).
The idea is that i am perfectly entitled to design something around a product of other company, without infringing their intellectual property. Accessory or obligatory use doesnt matter, as long as the code is distributed separately and each part is clearly identifiable. Regarding the difference between system libraries, how can you differentiate among non-system libraries and system libraries ? This is quite arbitrary. APIs are not copyrighteable. This was the whole concept around the Google vs Oracle case. 2012/7/29 Attila Kinali <att...@kinali.ch>: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:28:43 -0300 > "Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior" <jagf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Think about this : Can you think about the relationship of your >> modules versus someone else modules as being intrinsecally the same >> relation between linux and proprietary apps that happen to run in >> linux ? Because (putting informational security concerns besides) the >> userland apps calls kernel routines just like any app would call a >> library routine, the difference is mainly due to security concerns as >> the kernel code must be secured from userland. But as long as this is >> dynamically linked, i dont see "judicial" differences here. > > You have to be very carefull here. You are mixing two different > interface concepts here. For the kernel, its syscall-API is available > to all applications, no matter what their license is. And the basic > Unix kernel API has been implemented in various kernels with differnet > licenses. While if you make a library GPL you define that the API is only > available to applications that are compatible with the GPL. Yes, you can > argue that using the library does not make your application a derived work. > But you cannot argue that you are not allowed to use the library itself. > > And if you have a good lawyer, you can argue that if your proprietary > application is based on a GPL library for which no other replacement > with the same API is available, the library becomes an integral part > of the application. And even if the application cannot be deemed a > derivative work (which would be hard to argue in this case), the > violation of the libraries license is without doubt. And as your > application does not work without this specific library, it is > quite easy to conclude that you knowingly and willingly violated > the license terms of the library. > > > > Attila Kinali > -- > Why does it take years to find the answers to > the questions one should have asked long ago? > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
