gpl backlash?

[Kyle Rose]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
> no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
> product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
> you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combine it with my
> library to run it, which is demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't do useful
> work any other way or you haven't shipped an alternative library to that same
> user. I think I'd have a legitimate complaint.

Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is
enforcable.  Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use;
hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library
interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementation exists)
does not contain any actual code from that library, it cannot be
considered a derived work.  Although IANAL, it would be like suing
critics for reviews which contain "hooks" into the book (e.g.,
character names, chapter and/or event references, etc.)

Kyle


- -- 
Kyle R. Rose                      "They can try to bind our arms,
Laboratory for Computer Science    But they cannot chain our minds
MIT NE43-309, 617-253-5883             or hearts..."
http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/                           Stratovarius
krose at theory.lcs.mit.edu                              Forever Free
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE3nlT766jzSko6g9wRAmTsAKD46FhexYayhxIINjpBIQL+cuPWiACgoxGT
UAPnBJ5uRJN2s6s0aNlUN74=
=WIA+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----