From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22146 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22134 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eis-msg-012.jpl.nasa.gov) (137.78.160.40) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Received: from jpl.nasa.gov (penguin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.73.121]) by eis-msg-012.jpl.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14855 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:49:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3BF5A5B5.BC7AE2F0@jpl.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:20:00 -0000 From: Edwin Robert Tisdale Reply-To: E.Robert.Tisdale@jpl.nasa.gov Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 Ferdinando Ametrano wrote: > E. Robert Tisdale wrote: > > > Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL > > if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program. > > This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth. > Anton Fokin does need to comply with the GPL > if his software R-Quant needs GSL to work. It doesn't need the GSL to work. Anybody can write a library using the same API as GSL and distribute it under any license that they want. > That is, if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers, R-Quant must be GPL. No! You can't copyright an API. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) exists only because it is possible to clone proprietary APIs without violating copyright restrictions. > This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF. Show us where you think your assertion has been made clear by the FSF. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22146 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22134 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO eis-msg-012.jpl.nasa.gov) (137.78.160.40) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 23:49:22 -0000 Received: from jpl.nasa.gov (penguin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.73.121]) by eis-msg-012.jpl.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14855 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:49:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3BF5A5B5.BC7AE2F0@jpl.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:37:00 -0000 From: Edwin Robert Tisdale Reply-To: E.Robert.Tisdale@jpl.nasa.gov Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [smartquant] Re: GPL license violation? [GNU Scientific Library] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011114023700.ykmEg_Q5IBwLt37XBEEw5CtPsYZ9gds7rdg3cPRMC9k@z> Ferdinando Ametrano wrote: > E. Robert Tisdale wrote: > > > Anton Fokin doesn't need to comply with the GPL > > if he doesn't distribute the GSL with his program. > > This is simply not true. Please do not state your opinion as truth. > Anton Fokin does need to comply with the GPL > if his software R-Quant needs GSL to work. It doesn't need the GSL to work. Anybody can write a library using the same API as GSL and distribute it under any license that they want. > That is, if R-Quant includes GSL wrappers, R-Quant must be GPL. No! You can't copyright an API. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) exists only because it is possible to clone proprietary APIs without violating copyright restrictions. > This is not just my opinion: it has always been made clear by FSF. Show us where you think your assertion has been made clear by the FSF.