On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 18:05, Stephen Tetley <stephen.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tom > > Hmm, its seems I'm due to eat my hat... > > To me though, the judgement makes that insistence that using an API is > making a derivative work. I can't see how that squares up.
That has, AFAIU, been the intention of the GPL all along. See e.g. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html It also explains why there has been a discussion in the Linux kernel community about closed source drivers (e.g. nvidia). The LGPL was, AFAIU, written to explicitly allow a shift of license at the API level. Without the insistence you point out, GPL and LGPL would be pretty much the same license. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
