Fwd: Do we still need weak copyleft? (was Re: Exceptions to copyleft-next)

[Till Jaeger]

>> When (many years ago now) I referred to copyleft-next as "non-weak"
>> rather than "strong" I think it was because I was starting to despair
>> that copyleft-next couldn't be practically implemented in such a way
>> that a GPL vs LGPL sort of distinction would be meaningful. (I
>> remember someone playfully accusing me of adopting the views of Larry
>> Rosen.) However I don't necessarily think that now.
> 
> Heh.  I remember spending many hours in bars debating with FSF
> apologists about whether a GPL-licensed library would infect across
> the library interface, and they would claim that it didn't matter
> whether the library was statically or dynamically linked using a
> shared library.  At which point I would ask whether the GPL would also
> infect across an RPC call, and if that meant the FSF was in favor of
> interface copyrights.
I believe the premise is incorrect: the same technical connection 
between two software components does not necessarily have to be treated 
the same way under copyright law. I know this view is unpopular with 
many developers because it requires a case-by-case assessment. However, 
a comparison of system libraries and libraries developed solely for a 
single application already shows that there can indeed be relevant 
differences.

Best,
Till