Le 05/08/2013 18:24, Sean Upton a écrit : > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Encolpe Degoute <[email protected]> > wrote: >> * links to our GPL'd Python code (eg, by using Python's "import" >> statement) > I agree with the intent of this and the long-standing community choice > of license, but sometimes wonder if the logical implications of the > claim "use this namespace and also this API, and that means you have > created a derivative work" are negative vis-a-vis Oracle v. Google? > > Dynamic linking is a problem for copyleft definitions of derivative works. > > We as free software folks want APIs to not be copyrightable, except > when it is useful? It seems a bit problematic to say API use > constitutes a derivative work (or even API plus namespace use) because > if this ever did go to court, it might set or reinforce case law > possibly detrimental overall to free/open software and culture? > > Just food for thought. Not intending to troll or stir up controversy here.
Personally I'm not a GPL fan. Last year I made a survey about opensource license that I concluded by if you want no restrictions don't choose GPL or associates. You can choose BSD, MIT or OPL license. You can still use GPL for business but you have to understand all restrictions that come with it. Cheers -- Encolpe DEGOUTE http://encolpe.degoute.free.fr/ Logiciels libres, hockey sur glace et autres activités cérébrales _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/plone-product-developers
