🚀 go-pugleaf

"Lyman Neuschaefer" <lyman@bcsisims.com> writes:

> I've read the GPL and LGPL but don't feel certain my interpretation
> is correct.  Can anyone help clarify on this issue?

Help maybe.  Clarify no.

Whether you distribute the library and executable together or
separately probably doesn't matter regarding infringement.

It's debatable whether an executable designed to a library's
API is a derivative of it.  I wouldn't be suprised if a court
would find it so since they often support the spirit of copyright
law instead of applying logic to the letter.

I see an API as an uncopyrightable idea.  One could replace the GPLed
library with a clean-room rewrite and nobody could complain. (Well, they
can if the stakes are high enough.  Specifically, the "architecture" of
software can be copyrighted so maybe they could convince a court that
the API is a kind of architecture. More mud.)  The fact that you happen
to supply a GPL'd library instead of your own shouldn't have anything
to do with whether your executable is a derivative or not.  But since
many of us smart people see it both ways, you can expect courts to see
it both ways until they form a herd.

Your user's use of the software is not at issue.  They will not be
infringing by using your software, even if you are infringing.

Consider using and supporting real free software were people don't
threaten to sue you for using their "non-proprietary" software.