Gerhard Killesreiter skrev:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Piermaria Maraziti schrieb:
At 23.04 30/08/2007, you wrote:
<delurking>
For example, this API argument: by prohibiting use of APIs to bridge differently-licensed applications (and aren't APIs developed *precisely* to bridge two different applications?) we're forcing a "dumbing down" of work (and sundry other potential problems and risks) by legally requiring the bypassing of established application methodologies (such as security protocols) to write direct queries to databases.
If GPL programs do exist in windows (and mac) environments it is fairly obvious that use API of differently-licensed applications... or they write pixels directly in the graphic card and sectors directly in the hard disk?
Sorry to be rude but this had to be said this way... if I'm wrong I apologize, but I think I'm not.
You are completely wrong and you had better stayed in some dark corner.
The "problem" we are facing is due to the nature of how PHP and probably other scripting languages work. The situation isn't comparable to a compiled programms.
One could argue that one shouldn't place PHP programms under the GPL license.
I wonder if you have misunderstood the subject of the discussion. The issue original brought up by Jeff Eaton was about the fact that it is not permissible to write modules that bridge software with a license not compatible with GPL. But I cannot refrain from asking what problem you see with "the nature of how PHP and probably other scripting languages work."? If it is the meaning of "linking" you are troubled by, please read: * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html If it is the fact that program in a scripting language is linked with its interpreter, please read: * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#InterpreterIncompa.... * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL Best regards, Thomas