4 ms·
> Writing a program "based on" an API, i.e. which invokes the provided functions, is not a derivative work. If that were the case, the LGPL would never have be
by Karellen 3y ago
> Writing a program "based on" an API, i.e. which invokes the provided functions, is not a derivative work.
If that were the case, the LGPL would never have been needed.
- adrian_b 3y agoIndeed, the LGPL should never have been needed, because LGPL is the correct variant of GPL and the standard GPL should have been identical to what LGPL is now. Even with its illogical theory about the coverage of "combined" works, not even the GPL covers the programs that use an interface provided by a GPL program, but which are distributed only separately from it, like a shared library or a kernel module. So the NVIDIA kernel modules have never been incompatible with the GPL. The fight against non-GPL kernel modules has nothing to do with the GPL, but it is strictly the creation of certain kernel developers.
- im3w1l 3y agoWith static linking you take someone elses code and put it into your own artifact and then distribute that to users. This means that you need a license to distribute their code. Not just that, because of the way static linking works, you need a license to distribute modified version of the code. With dynamic linking you never distribute someone else's code so you don't need a license to distribute it.