Use of GPLed Python extension modules

[Daniel Berlin]

On Nov 22, 2003, at 5:33 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:

> Paul Rubin wrote:
>> bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) writes:
>>> The question ISTM is whether importing a GPL'd module is enough to
>>> trigger GPL obligations on the part of the importing module.
>>
>> That is a correct statement of the question.  According to the FSF,
>> the answer to the question is yes, that's enough to trigger the
>> obligations.
>
> Either you are misinterpreting the FSF, or the FSF is wrong.

Sigh.
Can't we simply leave legal questions to lawyers and judges?
The FSF is entitled to their view, and one could argue it and expect 
some chance of success. One could argue the other way, and expect some 
chance of success.  This is because there simply is no settled law, 
precedent, etc, on the subject.  So saying they are wrong makes you 
wrong, because they are correct in stating that it would have to be 
decided by a judge.

>  The FSF has no
> legal right to restrict the distribution of any software unless that
> software contains code which is copyrighted by the FSF.

This is, of course, incorrect, unfortunately.
For example, the FSF could own the exclusive right to license some 
piece of code.  Not saying that they do, but they could, and thus, even 
without being the copyright owner, would have the right to enforce it's 
license.
Any of the rights granted by copyright can be licensed without having 
to transfer the copyright itself.

I passed copyright law in law school, so i'm at least sure of this much.

In addition, DMCA grants them the right to prevent distribution of 
certain other types of code (code that circumvents effective access 
controls).

>   Whether the code
> may be linked to GPL code at runtime or not is irrelevant.
This may or may not be true.
Stating your opinion as fact is not helping.
--Dan