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

Federico Di Gregorio fog@initd.org
02 Oct 2002 11:42:51 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

a single answer and then i'll consider the argument closed.

Il mer, 2002-10-02 alle 11:25, M.-A. Lemburg ha scritto:

> Input and output of GPLed programs are not automatically
> covered by the GPL, e.g. the GNU C compiler needs many
> instructions to tell it what to do with the code, but that
> doesn't make the code automatically fall under the GPL.
> Please read clause 0. of the GPL and the FAQ for details.
> 	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> 	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

the FAQ says that bytecode is data and GPL interpreters *can* execute
non GPL code. why an external library simply adding functionality to the
interpreter would invalid this is a mistery to me. there is confusion
about bindings and the binded library (it seems that if the binded
library is GPL then the bytecode should be GPL, but this is complete
crap, IMO). why is an interpreter+library different from the interpreter
alone? i can't answer (imo it should not.)

M.-A., the problem is not as clear as you put it..

then, what will i do? simply nothing. if you have a *real* problem with
psycopg licensing just write me and we'll arrange it. but don't write me
on teoretical problems, we already had enough of them.

Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        fog@debian.org
INIT.D Developer                                           fog@initd.org
              La felicit=E0 =E8 una tazza di cioccolata calda. Sempre. -- I=

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

Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)