patch in Python?

Gerhard Häring gerhard.haering at gmx.de
Wed Oct 2 00:58:49 CEST 2002


* Paul Rubin <phr-n2002b at NOSPAMnightsong.com> [2002-10-01 15:29 -0700]:
> Gerhard Häring <gerhard.haering at gmx.de> writes:
> > > > > [1] http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ringx004/mapm-main.html
> > > > ...
> > > > - How does this compare to gmpy?
> >
> > ... one of the requirements is a BSD-ish license, as in the
> > end this will be used for the NUMERIC type of pyPgSQL. If it's going to
> > be useful for other purposes, that's a nice side-effect.
>
> MAPM doesn't have a BSD-ish license--you're not allowed to distribute
> modified versions except as the original plus patches.

This refers to the source code.

> I'd read that as meaning you're not allowed to ship pre-compiled
> binaries.

    """Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software and its
    documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
    provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and
    that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
    supporting documentation.                                   

    Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
    distribute the modified code.  Modifications are to be distributed
    as patches to released version."""

I'd read that as meaning that I can distribute binaries all I want and
that the restrictions only apply to distributing changed source code.
I'll ask the MAPM author to clarify this.

I admit that this is less than ideal, but so are LGPLed libraries.

> GMP is LGPL'd, which means you're free to ship modified versions,
> binaries (as long as you offer the library source), etc.  That sounds
> way preferable to MAPM.

I want to statically link, and there are problems with statically
linking with LGPLed libraries, because this effectively puts the entire
work under the terms of the LGPL. I want to avoid that.

-- Gerhard




More information about the Python-list mailing list