(offtopic) RE: [Python-Dev] Python 2.0 license and GPL
M.-A. Lemburg
mal@lemburg.com
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:25:12 +0100
Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [Tim and MAL talking about the FSF and their views]
>
> [Tim and MAL showing off as hobby advocates ;-)]
>
> >>> 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 ?
>
> > This is very controversial: if an application Q needs a GPLed
> > library P to work, then P and Q form a new whole in the sense of
> > the GPL. And this even though P wasn't even distributed together
> > with Q. Don't ask me why, but that's how RMS and folks look at it.
>
> Understood, but have you reread your question above, which I've said twice I
> can't make sense of?
I know, it was backwards.
Take an example: I have a program which
wants to process MP3 files in some way. Now because of some stroke
is luck, all Python MP3 modules out there are covered by the GPL.
Now I could write an application which uses a certain interface
and then tell the user to install the MP3 module separately.
As Barry mentioned, this setup will cause distribution of my
application to be illegal because I could have only done so
by putting the application under the GPL.
> You should read RMS on why glibc is under the LGPL:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> It will at least disabuse you of the notion that RMS and you are after the
> same thing <wink>.
:-)
Let's stop this discussion and get back to those cheerful things
like Christmas Bells and Santa Clause... :-)
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/