On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Kern Sibbald <[email protected]> wrote: > It is my belief that the LGPL was designed to allow linking with any other > code without that code being LGPL. So concerning your statement that it > would be the end of LGPL, I don't agree.
kern may i respectfully remind you that top-posting in a complex discussion places a burden on others to work out what you are replying to: it is against standard netiquette rules, please don't do it. let's first take the time (my time) to re-structure what you wrote, then we can reply. >> If APIs were to be copyrightable, it would have a huge impact, especially >> for the C/C++/Linux world. In that universe, APIs are usually defined in >> header files containing type definitions (data structures) and function >> signatures. In order to use software (e.g. a library) with such API, you >> will have to include the header file into your code. If the API is >> copyrightable and the library+header file are licensed, say, under LGPL, >> your code would need to be licensed under (L)GPL, too. This would be the end >> of proprietary applications using LGPL libraries. > It is my belief that the LGPL was designed to allow linking with any other > code without that code being LGPL. So concerning your statement that it > would be the end of LGPL, I don't agree. the LGPL has been designed with the assumption that the API - which is IMPLEMENTED as a header file - is NOT IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN THE LICENSE. to emphasise this, before going any further and before criticising or reading any statements below, please read - in full - the text at the following link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/who-ever-thought-apis-were-copyrightable-anyway so we are talking NOT about the-implementation-of-the-API: that *is* covered by the LGPL, and the *header* file *IS* permitted to be utilised in linking to proprietary applications. so think, kern: why would you explicitly even put something in a license when it isn't even considered to be copyright? that would be insane. so *nobody* has put in explicit language to license something that cannot even be licensed!! and the definition of functions (name, argument types) have NEVER been considered copyright, so nobody has ever been *ABLE* to include licensing THAT WHICH CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED. ... now some idiots want to have the definition of functions (the actual name, the actual argument types) NOT REPEAT NOT REPEAT NOT I REPEAT AGAIN AND COUNTLESS TIMES AGAIN ***NOT*** the IMPLEMENTATION but the ***CONCEPT*** of what goes into an API... these idiots at oracle want the definitions of functions to become copyrighted. is. this. now. clear. l.
