RTS and the GPL
Posted Nov 15, 2012 12:44 UTC (Thu) by lacos
Parent article: RTS and the GPL
Rosen also maintains that Oracle v. Google in the US (and, in Europe, SAS v. World Programming) debunks the claim that using the Linux APIs automatically creates a derivative work.
For me that's the most interesting bit. It directly contradicts this example:
However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.
Incidentally, the readline interface has since been reimplemented under one of the BSD license ("libedit"). Judging by the used APIs and nothing else, the program alluded to above would now qualify as a derivative work of two libraries (alternatively), each differently licensed.
I think that a statically linked binary would indeed be derivative work (because it incorporates code). However the source code of the client app incorporates no library code. I'm not sure about a dynamically linked binary, as it can still contain (compiled) macros from the specific library header files.
Hmmm, I think the above citation references CLISP. A very eye-opening thread under the link, one that flies in the face of the rulings cited above, apparently.
to post comments)