(offtopic) RE: [Python-Dev] Python 2.0 license and GPL

[M.-A. Lemburg]

Greg Ewing wrote:
> 
> "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com>:
> > if an application Q needs a GPLed
> > library P to work, then P and Q form a new whole in the sense of
> > the GPL.
> 
> I don't see how Q can *need* any particular library P
> to work. The most it can need is some library with
> an API which is compatible with P's. So I don't
> buy that argument.

It's the view of the FSF, AFAIK. You can't distribute an application
in binary which dynamically links against libreadline (which is GPLed)
on the user's machine, since even though you don't distribute
libreadline the application running on the user's machine is
considered the "whole" in terms of the GPL.

FWIW, I don't agree with that view either, but that's probably
because I'm a programmer and not a lawyer :)

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company:                                        http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting:                                    http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages:                           http://www.lemburg.com/python/