<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 01:37, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skip@pobox.com">skip@pobox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I<br>
Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.<br>
<br>
>> If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing<br>
>> issue?<br>
<br>
</div> Martin> On Windows, the GMP binaries would be incorporated into<br>
Martin> pythonxy.dll. This would force anybody providing a copy of<br>
Martin> pythonxy.dll to also provide the sources of GMP.<br>
<br>
As I understand it the proposal was to allow people to substitute GMP for<br>
Python's long implementation. Just deliver binaries with the Python long<br>
version if you don't want to distribute the GMP source. OTOH, it should be<br>
no big deal to drop a zip archive of the GMP sources which correspond to the<br>
code bound into the DLL. OTOOH, doesn't Windows support dynamic linking?<br>
Can't pythonxy.dll dynamically link to a gmpMN.dll?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to GMP) would solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that build of Python would still be held by the LGPL -- such as shipping any sources that they embed that Python into.<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!<br>