wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer mwm at mired.org
Tue Nov 22 23:23:20 CET 2005

"John Perks and Sarah Mount" <johnandsarah at estragon.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> How should we refer to this in terms of copyright statements and bundled
> Licence files? Is there, say, a standard wording to be appended to the
> GPL header in each source file? Does the original author need to be
> named as one of the copyright holders, or that ours is a derivative work
> from his? Which of these would be required under the terms of the
> Licence, and which by standard practice / courtesy?

The answer to most of these depends on the wxPython license. You'll
have to read it - or, as others have suggested, ask the author. The
only thing that can be said is that if you include work from another
person, you've created a derived work. If they have a copyright on
that original work, they have a copyright on your derived work.

> (This assumes the wxPython Licence is compatible with the GPL -- if not,
> do we just cosmetically change any remaining lines, so none remain from
> the orignal?)

Taking the orignal and changing it - whether cosmetic or not - is the
definition of a "derived work". That won't change the copyright status
at all. If you can't include it in a GPL'ed work, then nothing you can
do to it will let you do that.

Or you could just use it and claim that the excerpts are small enough
to qualify as fair use. But it would be far more polite to ask the

Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

More information about the Python-list mailing list