Licenses and subterfuge
galactus at stack.nl
Sat Feb 28 12:24:38 UTC 2004
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 libraries are available by searching our bug
> > > database at ..."
> > Can you really say that seriously if the _only_ implementation
> > available is GPL-licensed FooLib? And more importantly, will a
> > judge believe you?
> IMO, you can say that seriously if your program can accept any
> implementation of a published API. Availability and licensing of
> libraries should be irrelevant.
If there's only one library in existence that implements the API,
then you _must_ have used that library. Then I cannot see how
your program can be anything other than a derivative of that
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss