Hi
The API of a GPL library is not protected by the GPL. In fact FSF claim
that APIs should be public. So, other people can create alternative
libraries using the "same" API. Even GNU do this. See for example the R
language (reimplementation of S language), GNU Octave (a free software
version of MathLab program and language) or GNUstep libraries (an
alternative to MacOS Cocoa). All this with many functions and API in common.
Also, see the FSF position at Oracle vrs Google:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-statement-on-court-of-appeals-ruling-in-oracle-v-google
The API could be there, but if isn't a derivative work (a modified
version of the original source code at the GPL package) and isn't linked
with a GPL package, there isn't problem.
Regards
On 6/6/20 9:19 AM, Andrew Robinson wrote:
PS -- "The project itself does not violate the GPL in any way"
Remember that GPL is a copyleft license, and that appears to mean that any
software that is written based on using or calling any GPL component,
automatically means that the entire project falls under the GPL license. I am
looking at the source code for IUP right now and it has source code that
incorporates GPL components via hard-coded Application Programming Interface
(API) calls, a fact that is also reflected in the documentation for the IUP
API. Therefore it is irrelevant if a user/programmer uses those APIs or not.
What is relevant is that if IUP incorporates any GPL components, even in an
API call, would seem to imply that IUP by default must also fall under the GPL
license. So is IUP really GPL in disguise or is it something else? I think we
should let the lawyers decide this matter amongst themselves because I'm not
sure anymore.
Regards,
Andres
On 2020-06-06 at 6:54 AM, "Andrew Robinson" <arobinso...@cox.net> wrote:
On 2020-06-05 at 5:39 PM, sur-behoffski <sur_behoff...@grouse.com.au> wrote:
G'day all,
[Sorry for breaking the thread -- digest strikes again...]
Like RMS, I strongly dislike "Open Source" as an umbrella term, and strongly
prefer "Free (as in Freedom)" or "Libre" (e.g. LibreOffice): The underlying
concepts are massively, massively different.
Speaking of "underlying concepts", from the history and philosophy of GNU on
Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU, we can read where it says
"The
goal [of GNU] was to bring a completely free software operating system into
existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free to study the source code
of the software they use, share software with other people, modify the
behavior of software, and publish their modified versions of the software.
This philosophy was later published as the GNU Manifesto in March 1985". Has
that philosophy massively, massively changed since then? Not that I can see.
Speaking of "massively, massively different", from the FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GNU LICENSES at
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney, we can
read
where it says "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of
the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no
limit on what price you can charge". Do you expect me to believe that "free"
software means "there is no limit on what price you can charge" for it?
Okay, so enough of your word games (and theirs), let's get a third opinion
>from some subject matter experts, say like the OSI (Open Source Initiative).
The OSI specifically states on their website at
https://opensource.org/faq#free-software, that "'Free software' and 'open
source software' are two terms for the same thing". Wow! That makes it sound
like they aren't all that "massively, massively different" to me. All this
word play alone is a very good reason to always be skeptical of
open-source/free software licenses, especially US-centric ones basically
claiming to be your best friend.
But to get back to the actual topic here, the issue isn't the difference in
meaning between the word "free" and the term "open-source". That is merely a
red herring. The issue here is what does the GNU license say you can or
cannot
do with your product if you incorporate any of their products into your
products API? It says your product will by default fall under the GNU
license,
and (according to OPEN SOURCE LICENSES EXPLAINED at
https://resources.whitesourcesoftware.com/blog-whitesource/open-source-licenses-explained),
"GPL is a copyleft license. This means that any software that is written
based
on any GPL component must be released as open source. The result is that any
software that uses any GPL open source component (regardless of its
percentage
in the entire code) is required to release its full source code and all of
the
rights to modify and distribute the entire code".
You can't gaslight me with your word games here, so don't even try.
Regards,
Andres
_______________________________________________
Iup-users mailing list
Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
_______________________________________________
Iup-users mailing list
Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
