[DB-SIG] Re: [Psycopg] GPL or LGPL

Federico Di Gregorio fog@initd.org
02 Oct 2002 01:19:42 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Il mer, 2002-10-02 alle 00:04, Tom Jenkins ha scritto:

> I have read these and I don't believe the GPL fits the stated goal of=20
> Federico.
>  From why-not-lgpl
> "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is=20
> the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of=20
> license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the=20
> library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library=20
> makes it available only for free programs.

let's restate the problem: bash is GPL'ed. should *any* sh script be
released under the GPL? or only the ones using bash extensions to
standard bourne shell? and why is python (and its extension psycopg)
diferent from a shell?

the only problem i can forsee is people mixing GPL'ed and proprietary
modules written in C in the same python, but still then, they are
independently linking with python (unless the proprietary module call
the GPL'ed one).

Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        fog@debian.org
INIT.D Developer                                           fog@initd.org
                   I came like Water, and like Wind I go. -- Omar Khayam

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)