Is there actually precedent for a GPL library, clearly setup to be consumed with an API, to require GPL of the whole binary? On the one hand that's clearly not the case in the Linux API, on the other hand the LGPL exists. But was curious if this is actually settled or just too murky to live with.
I know the situation of the Linux kernel. The discussion hinges on what is a "derived work". Kernel modules are very interlinked with the kernel, particularly since there are no stable APIs inside the kernel. It seems strange that just linking to a GPL library that defined an API makes you a derived work. But that is the FSF position:
This is why I always do libs as LGPL but it seems strange to me that it's even needed. If I've defined a proper opaque API, to be consumed by external code I know nothing about, it's strange to then argue that library callers are derived works and LGPL is explicitly needed.
There are many gpl/lgpl dbs with bsd drivers (ex: scylladb). Dont know about library though (you should be able to use the library externally I think just like you do with the db)
