On Tuesday 08 September 2009 04:51:18 am Ben wrote: > What you want sounds reasonable in theory, but doesn't it now hinge on the > specifics of what the API is for libmnemosyne? If you AGPLed libmnemosyne, > it seems possible that the level 2 wrapper would not be considered the same > program as libmnemosyne, because libmnemosyne has a well definined API that > is presumably adequate for writing #2.
Note that the clause the AGPL added to the GPL does not really talk about APIs. It only says that if the original program had an option to download the source, the modified one should also have that same option. This way, improvements can flow back to us, and Mnemosyne is credited as well. The bit on APIs was specified as clarification in the legal faq of the CiviCRM project, apparently after council with their layers. So, I guess if we follow the same model, we should be fine. Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mnemosyne-proj-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
