3 ms·
Yes, I agree. However using an API that may-or-may-not be bound by the GPL is different (de facto) from using an API that the licensor claims is covered by the
by wyldfire 4y ago
Yes, I agree. However using an API that may-or-may-not be bound by the GPL is different (de facto) from using an API that the licensor claims is covered by the GPL. It's quite a bit more risky IMO.
> using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of itself
Note that while it might be a gray area, there is some (recent) precedent [1]. Although a SCOTUS ruling isn't quite as binding as it used to be... :(
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
- sudosysgen 4y agoIIRC that case isn't that the using an API makes it a derivative work, but that the API itself is copyrighted and that making an implementation of that API is a copyright violation (except for fair use, etc...). EDIT: gpm is correct, they didn't arrive to such a conclusion.
- gpm 4y ago> the API itself is copyrighted They didn't decide either way on that question. To quote wikipedia "This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate the copyright of the API unnecessary".