I've always been under the impression/opinion (having never spoken to a
lawyer about this and not being a lawyer), that linking to a GPL library
- even if you use a public domain .h file - still means you have to be
GPL (or internal use only) because of the library itself.
I know (or think) it would be a different story to open the fifo/port
and write to it in your own code. Probably. That seems like "software
patent" territory to an unlearned not-lawyer like me.
-[Unknown]
Walter Bright wrote:
Steve Teale wrote:
I have posted this version 0.00 module on my DCat web page -
http://www.britseyeview.com/dcat/ from where you can download it.
The generated documentation is also there.
The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out
there, where does that leave the D version? At the moment I have
retained the GPL header.
I'd welcome comments.
If you're translating GPL code to D, the result is a derived work and
therefore still GPL.
If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is
copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.
I think Linus Torvalds got sued over having an errno.h that matched up
with Unix's, same names, same values, and he prevailed.
