Re: Package proposal : TVision

You can't effectively re-license existing code (that has a non-GPL license) under the GPL just by writing your own implementation of the interface under the GPL; it's the new implementation that it GPL'd, not the interface. Thus, it is safe to link against the GPL'd implementation without risk of GPL infection, provided that the code still links against the non-GPL implementation. --Wez. On 5/9/05, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote: > # demenev@gmail.com / 2005-04-26 23:29:25 +1100: > > 2005/4/26, Wez Furlong <kingwez@gmail.com>: > > > If the GPL library has the same API as the BSD licensed version, we > > > can safely link against the GPL'd version without being infected. > > > > > > Why? Because you can't impose the GPL on a public API that is not > > > already GPL'd. > > > > > > This trick is used for the readline extension, which links against the > > > BSD libedit as well as the GPL libreadline. > > > > The GPL'ed library's API can be considered a superset of the BSD one. > > It has some additional functions. Would it be acceptable in PECL to > > have code that uses these additional features? > > (IANAL, but) this is what FSF says, and I read it as "no, it > wouldn't be acceptable": > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL : > > Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that > mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? > > A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library. > > -- > How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? > You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. > Cause you weren't THERE. > http://bash.org/?255991 >