Python 2.0.1c1 - GPL-compatible release candidate
wware at world.std.com
Fri Jun 15 06:51:21 CEST 2001
Guido van Rossum (guido at digicool.com) wrote:
> With a sigh of relief I announce Python 2.0.1c1 -- the first Python
> release in a long time whose license is fully compatible with the GPL
Congratulations to you and to Moshe! I know this has been something
you've wanted to do for a while.
Just to make sure I understand the way GPL coverage extends to derived
works, here is what I think is true.
Python scripts and programs are not derived works, and are only GPL-ware
if their author or copyright holder declares them to be so.
C extensions (the kinds of things I get by cutting and pasting from
xxmodule.c and xxobject.c) *are* derived works, and the GPL coverage
of 2.0.1 would therefore cover them as well, should I choose to
One thing I don't know is whether *any* C extensions to 2.0.1 would be
derived works. If I'm such a Python-extension-writing guru that I don't
need to cut and paste from xxobject.c and xxmodule.c, then it seems
unlikely my extensions would be derived works, especially if they are
legacy things from one of the pre-GPL Python versions. The same would
be true of SWIG-generated extensions, I would imagine.
But the GPL extends its coverage not only to derived works in the obvious
sense, but also to code which is statically linked with a GPL program.
If my extensions are statically linked to 2.0.1, then by that criterion
they would also be GPL-ware.
I don't know if the same is true of dynamically-linked extensions.
Have I got any of that right, or should I go back on my meds now?
22nd century: Esperanto, geodesic | Will Ware
domes, hovercrafts, metric system | wware at world.std.com
More information about the Python-list