Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote:
> ... this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft, in my opinion.
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I think we need another phrase than "strong copyleft".
I believe that Patrice-Emmanuel is correct for U.S. copyright law also. Unlike
Bruce, I don't believe that the problem is the term "strong copyleft" but
rather the strong assertion of some GPL license advocates who declare that mere
linking between independent programs creates a copyright ("copyleft")
obligation for both programs. Linking is an example of a mere API that can be
used freely without obligations. (Other examples are "class inheritance" and
"copying a functional header file.") Unless that is what we mean by API, then
your program will adversely affect my independent program, without legal
copyright or license authority.
That is what most of us are asking the US Supreme Court to acknowledge.
Pam Chestek asked:
> How do you know where the line is?
I believe the line is actual copying of the expressive source code.
/Larry
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
