On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Le quartidi 14 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit : >> By strong Copyleft I mean a free software license that requires "derivate >> works" (as determined by Copyright law) to be free software (as in freedom), >> including works that are derivatives by making use of the Copylefted work >> through an API. > > This kind of license, if it exists or if someone invents it, would have two > serious drawbacks. That may explain why you do not find one. > > The firs drawback is that it would be incompatible with GPL code and > libraries, and even possibly LGPL. That means libraries made using that > license can not be used from GPL code or with GPL libraries. Basically, > there is logically room for only one widely-adopted copyleft license.
I'm curious as to your reasoning here. > The second drawback is that it would probably have no legal standing. > Copyleft is based on copyright, and copyright controls distribution, nothing > else. In principle, it can not control API use, since there is no > distribution involved. In practice, you can argue that using an API requires > copying tiny bits of it in the calling program: function names, macro > expansion, etc. But this claim is weak: copyright requires originality, and > there is little room for originality in function names; and it is easy to > circumvent. The more restrictive you make your license, the stronger the > incentive to circumvent it. I'm not really seeing your reasoning here, either. > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George I would disagree (rather strongly) with at least some of what you seem to be saying, but I'm not really sure what you are intending to say here. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well: http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
