> > If you DO NOT write plain vanilla C code to Posix libc specs and expect > to fully use the advanced features offered by GPL-ONLY licensed > extensions to libraries, and distribute binary that links against these, > then you are in trouble even if there are 24 different implementations > of said libraries (again, the API must not originate outside the GPL > community for this to be true - because you are linking against an API > in fact, not against a library - it can be said that the implementors > of the library built it to the API specs - which API is not GPL if not > originated by the GPL community). >
Question is, is it enough that there is one non-GPL implementation I can link against exporting the same API, does this now make the work non-derived of the GPL API? More to the point, does the API fall under the GPL or the results. If there are to libraries implementing the exact same algorithm one GPL and one free (LGPL for arguments sake), but with different API. If I allow linking also against the GPL one (in whatever manner, #ifdef or whatever), does this make the code derived work? If I write the code so that it can link only against the GPL version but it's possible without changing anything but the API (same algorithm and everything) to link against the LGPL version, does this make it derived work? I do believe that I venture here to the very gray areas of the GPL that would be rather difficult to defend in court, much more then making a non-GPL program impose as a GPL one though and is much more an ethical or theological question than the original one. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
