[Python-3000] C API for ints and strings

[Nicholas Bastin]

On 9/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > If python.org agreed to host the GMP source, that would suffice for
> > all people distributing python binaries (they could then just refer to
> > the GMP source download as a link).
>
> It would not if they don't distribute the binary through download.
> If they put it on some media, or preinstalled on a computer (which
> happens a lot), offering the source for download through the internet
> is not good enough. Option 6d) only applies if the binaries are
> distributed "by offering access to copy from a designated place".

This is a good point.

> > The FSF explicitly states that
> > this kind of agreement satisfies that requirement of the license.
>
> Where do they do that?

In the GPL FAQ (<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>).  Specifically:

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a
different Internet site?
    The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from
the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make
arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code
available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next
to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

> > As for the user-replaceable shared library part, that's up for
> > considerable debate.  It's unlikely that static linkage legally
> > creates a derivative work (that would be pretty unreasonable in
> > computer science terms), but it's never been tested in court, so
> > static linking would probably be out for distributors without a legal
> > department.
>
> Perhaps. However, even if you link dynamically, you would *still*
> have to provide source code along with the binary.

No one is disputing that, just saying that the terms could be made
less onerous for subsequent distributors of python by securing a
written guarantee from python.org that python.org would continue to
distribute the source code on the internet.

Of course, as several people have now pointed out, non-internet
distribution would still have to ship the source code on their own,
since the FAQ also prefers that source distribution be done by the
same method as binary distribution.  However, that being said, I don't
see it as particularly onerous to add a small source distribution to a
CD, since there's only a marginal increase in effective cost.

All of this being said, GMP has been shot down for plenty of good
technical reasons, which is really the question that was asked in the
first place.  This legal discussion is bordering on the sublime at
this point, given that no one is actually suggesting that we bind
Python to any LGPL software (nor, by the way, was that actually ever
suggested - the question was asked of what the community thought of a
particular piece of software, and an idea in general, and instead of
answering that question, most decided to explain what they thought of
a particular license, ignoring the technical questions entirely).

--
Nick