On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 5:34 PM Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I dislike this, but the Federal Circuit would tell you that the APIs are
expressive source code.
Luis
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
