(offtopic) RE: [Python-Dev] Python 2.0 license and GPL

[Tim Peters]

I'm not going to argue about the GPL.  Take it up with the FSF!  I will say
that if you do get the FSF's attention, Moglen will have an instant counter
to any objection you're likely to raise -- he's been thinking about this for
10 years, and he's heard it all.  And in our experience, RMS won't commit to
anything before running it past Moglen.

[MAL]
> But it's his [RMS's] piece of work, isn't it ? He's the one who can
> change it.

Akin to saying Python is Guido's piece of work.  Yes, no, kinda, more true
at some times than others, ditto respects.  RMS has consistently said that
any changes for the next version of the GPL will take at least a year, due
to extensive legal review required first.  Would be more clearly true to say
that the first version of the GPL was RMS's alone -- but version 2 came out
in 1991.

> ...
> Strange, then how come he sees the choice of law clause as a problem:
> without explicitely ruling out the applicability of the UN CISC,
> this clause is waived by it anyway... at least according to a
> specialist on software law here in Germany.
> ... [and other "who knows?" objections] ...

Guido quoted the text of your Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:19:09 +0200 "Re:
[License-py20] Re: GPL incompability as seen from Europe" msg to Moglen, who
dismissed it almost offhandedly as "layman's commentary".  You'll have to
ask him why:  MAL, we're not lawyers.  We're incompetent to have this
discussion -- or at least I am, and Moglen thinks you are too <wink>.

>>> Another issue: since Python doesn't link Python scripts, is it
>>> still true that if one (pure) Python package is covered by the GPL,
>>> then all other packages needed by that application will also fall
>>> under GPL ?

[Tim]
>> Sorry, couldn't make sense of the question.  Just as well,
>> since you should ask about it on a GNU forum anyway <wink>.

[MAL]
> Isn't this question (whether the GPL virus applies to byte-code
> as well) important to Python programmers as well ?

I don't know -- like I said, I couldn't make sense of the question, i.e. I
couldn't figure out what it is you're asking.  I *suspect* it's based on a
misunderstanding of the GPL; for example, gcc is a GPL'ed application that
requires stuff from the OS in order to do its job of compiling, but that
doesn't mean that every OS it runs on falls under the GPL.  The GPL contains
no restrictions on *use*, it restricts only copying, modifying and
distributing (the specific rights granted by copyright law).  I don't see
any way to read the GPL as restricting your ability to distribute a GPL'ed
program P on its own, no matter what the status of the packages that P may
rely upon for operation.

The GPL is also not viral in the sense that it cannot infect an unwitting
victim.  Nothing whatsoever you do or don't do can make *any* other program
Q "fall under" the GPL -- only Q's owner can set the license for Q.  The GPL
purportedly can prevent you from distributing (but not from using) a program
that links with a GPL'ed program, but that doesn't appear to be what you're
asking about.  Or is it?

If you were to put, say, mxDateTime, under the GPL, then yes, I believe the
FSF would claim I could not distribute my program T that uses mxDateTime
unless T were also under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license.  But if
mxDateTime is not under the GPL, then nothing I do with T can magically
change the mxDateTime license to the GPL (although if your mxDateTime
license allows me to redistribute mxDateTime under a different license, then
it allows me to ship a copy of mxDateTime under the GPL).

That said, the whole theory of GPL linking is muddy to me, especially since
the word "link" (and its variants) doesn't appear in the GPL.

> Oh well, nevermind... it's still nice to hear that CNRI and RMS
> have finally made up their minds to render Python GPL-compatible --
> whatever this means ;-)

I'm not sure it means anything yet.  CNRI and the FSF believed they reached
agreement before, but that didn't last after Moglen and Kahn each figured
out what the other was really suggesting.