Python 2.0.1c1 - GPL-compatible release candidate

[James Logajan]

Will Ware wrote:
> 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 haven't examined the GPL text to see if Will's interpretation is remotely
correct, but I'd wager good money that such a broad reach by any license
agreement would fail miserably in most any court.

> I don't know if the same is true of dynamically-linked extensions.

Since the only difference is the time at which some symbols are looked up
and assigned values, what applies to static linking should also apply to
dynamic linking, and vice versa.

> Have I got any of that right, or should I go back on my meds now?

I sincerely hope you got that wrong Will. Have you checked your medicine? If
you got it right, have the GPL authors checked their medicine?