3 ms·

The europa.eu articles (this is only one of them BTW) are about the case in EU where, indeed, copyleft goes only as far as MPL/LGPL/etc and of course EUPL - and

The europa.eu articles (this is only one of them BTW) are about the case in EU where, indeed, copyleft goes only as far as MPL/LGPL/etc and of course EUPL - and note that this isn't 100% certain, it is just the most likely interpretation based on previous cases about interoperability. However this only valid for the EU itself. When software is not confined inside the EU, e.g. one (even a member of EU) cares about distribution outside of it, then the difference between GPL and LGPL can matter. For example even if EU does not see a difference, US might do and unless your software isn't to be used outside of EU the distinction still exists.

Comevius 5y ago
Google got away with distributing 11,000 lines of code from Oracle's proprietary Java implementation. It was considered fair use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_.... The conditions you put in a software license must work within a legal framework. It appears that your license can't relicense my code, it only applies to your code. However linking or reproducing portions of your code for interoperability don't create a derivative work. This is of course not a legal advice. FSF licenses are trying to take away rights from you that cannot be taken away.