On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If there's only one library in existence that implements the API,
then you _must_ have used that library.
Technically, no. I do not _have to_ use any library to make a
dynamically linked executable. For example, I develop open source
software that
Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Our software can be linked with any library supporting Foo
API. Users report success with FooLib on Linux. Other Foo API
libraries may be available in your environment. Known compatibility
problems with Foo
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Of course, it would be foolish to provoke a law suite by attacking
viral goals in software documentation. Documentation should focus on
technical issues. For example, it would be foolish to write:
Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only
a
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a
GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In
such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to
avoid having to link to such
Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Absolutely right. Still, it could be problematic if there is only a
GPL-licensed library available to perform the functions you need. In
such a case you may be forced to have a similar library developed to
avoid having
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
The issue I see is that your software requires that particular
GPL-licensed library to run. Normally, you would supply your
software together with that library (dynamically linked). Now, for
the sole reason to avoid having to comply with the GPL,
I know this question is a little off-topic for this list, but this
list seems like the best place to get an answer to this question. I
hope this question is at least tangentially relevant to this list as
it concerns when open-source license come into play and certain forms
of possible subterfuge
Chris F Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a lawyer. Moreover, your questions relate to the issue of
when one piece of software is a derivative work of another, which is
not clearly settled.
If one has provided a version of readline that is not GPL, can one
argue that the intent of the
Chris,
Let me offer a simpler non-lawyer and non-legal advice. I
will try to state it so that there are no (or fewer) gray areas :-).
Please interpret the three clauses below as a whole.
0) Interface (a published API) is not copyrightable and,
hence, cannot be a viral
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Note that the above rules imply that what you say in documentation is
irrelevant. For example, if you write software that uses published
readline interface and instruct all your users to dynamically link
with GPL readline (for whatever reason), _your_ software is not
10 matches
Mail list logo
