We aren't talking about the API, but the code to which the API links to. Don't try to gaslight me.
Regards, Andres On 2020-06-06 at 4:09 PM, Germán Arias <germanan...@gmx.es> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ Iup-users mailing list Iup-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/iup-users
