[Python-Dev] (libffi) Re: Copyright issue

[Giovanni Bajo]

Thomas Heller <theller at python.net> wrote:
>
> Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics.uc.edu> writes:
>
>> Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
>> should be no issues.
>
> [Anthony Green]
>>>> I guess I wasn't clear.  aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build
>>>> libffi.  Like your C compiler.  Bundling it with the Python source
>>>> distribution should have no impact on the licensing of Python
>>>> itself, since it isn't really part of the resulting Python binary -
>>>> just like your C compiler isn't.
>
> [Thomas Heller]
>>> I guess I understood this already.  The difference to the C
>>> compiler is
>>> that the compiler is not 'bundled' with Python, it is installed
>>> separately.
>>
>
> "Giovanni Bajo" <rasky at develer.com> writes:
>> That's no different. If you burn a CD containing a copy of the GCC
>> and a
>> copy of a commercial software you are not violating any license. If
>> you
>> distribute an .ISO file containing a copy of the GCC and a copy of a
>> commercial software, you are not violating any license. If you
>> distribute a .zip file containing a copy of GCC and a copy of a
>> commercial software, you
>> are not violating any license.
>>
>> There is an important difference between aggreggation of different
>> programs,
>> and static/dynamic linking of parts. Autoconf is a build tool, and
>> it does
>> not impose any license on the software you use it with. Plus some
>> files have
>> the special exception from GPL so that even the files *generated* by
>> autoconf (and partly made of pieces of autoconf) do not require to
>> be GPL.
>> This is exactly like GCC's runtime library (libgcc, and also
>> libstdc++)
>> which are GPL with the special exception, and you can use them also
>> for
>> commercial products.
>>
>> Also, do not understimate previous history. There are zillions of
>> programs
>> out there using Autconf and *not* being GPL.
>
> Ok, understood - there is no problem.  Hopefully the rest of the
> pythondev team is also convinced.
>
> The only question I have (maybe this is too off-topic, but since we're
> here already): Nearly all the tools that autoconf and automake use are
> careful to include an exception clause to the GPL license.  Why is
> aclocal.m4 different?

Is aclocal.m4 even GPL in the first place? I don't see such a notice in my
libffi copy.

Giovanni Bajo