|
|
|
|
|
|
by qcoh
1944 days ago
|
|
|
From the FAQ, I don't get why the code has to be GPL licensed. It talks about libraries, "entire combinations", "software modules that link" and "work as a whole". On your second point: Can't they argue that they implement against an API, which could be provided by non-GPL software as well? |
|
|
>On your second point: Can't they argue that they implement against an API, which could be provided by non-GPL software as well?
I don't think that is reasonable. A GPL program is specifically named in requirements.txt and imported. It's essentially the same as dynamic linking, that is no more than naming a program and using it's API. If this argument was valid one could also argue it's possible to modify a dynamically linked binary's rpath (can be easily done with patchelf on GNU/linux) from a GPL library to a non-GPL one so dynamically linking a library would never require you to do abide to it's license, which is obviously untrue [1].
[0]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
[1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic