[sldev] [META] GPL'd APIs (Re: Protocol Documentation)

[Dzonatas]

Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 03-Oct-2007, at 17:48, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> On 10/3/07 3:18 PM, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>>> There have been specific cases where independently developed
>>> components that implemented the same API as a GPLed program have been
>>> hit with legal action by the FSF, on the grounds that by ...
>> Can you actually document this?
>
> The best known case is libmp. I can't find the original discussion on 
> this one but here's a reference fairly close in time...
>
> "http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/06/msg00088.html"
>

I started to read this and realized this is actually the more famous 
gray area that causes license disputes to be handled on a case by case 
basis. The effect of that case above does not bind every other case like 
it to have the same outcome. It is a logical fallacy: dicto simpliciter.

I've been pretty content with the legality that GPL has held no solid 
authority over API-links. There is, instead, a legal position held about 
content. The mere act to link with an API does hold any legal 
restriction until content is actually being swapped or shared. The court 
has to deal with these on a case by case issue due to the need to study 
the actual content being used and how it is used in the API (and related 
program).

How the study of that content will be handled in court is one of those 
things you'll have to ask your lawyers advice. The mere act to document 
the API itself under GPL (or GFDL or Creative Comments 
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5) and even copyright it still does not 
automatically blend (or patent) functionality and content from use of 
such API.

=p

-- 
Power to Change the Void