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

[M.-A. Lemburg]

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> [Tim and MAL talking about the FSF and their views]
> 
> [Tim and MAL showing off as hobby advocates ;-)]
> 
> >>> Another issue: since Python doesn't link Python scripts, is it
> >>> still true that if one (pure) Python package is covered by the GPL,
> >>> then all other packages needed by that application will also fall
> >>> under GPL ?
> 
> > This is very controversial: 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. And this even though P wasn't even distributed together
> > with Q. Don't ask me why, but that's how RMS and folks look at it.
> 
> Understood, but have you reread your question above, which I've said twice I
> can't make sense of? 

I know, it was backwards. 

Take an example: I have a program which
wants to process MP3 files in some way. Now because of some stroke
is luck, all Python MP3 modules out there are covered by the GPL.

Now I could write an application which uses a certain interface
and then tell the user to install the MP3 module separately.
As Barry mentioned, this setup will cause distribution of my 
application to be illegal because I could have only done so
by putting the application under the GPL.

> You should read RMS on why glibc is under the LGPL:
> 
>     http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> It will at least disabuse you of the notion that RMS and you are after the
> same thing <wink>.

:-) 

Let's stop this discussion and get back to those cheerful things
like Christmas Bells and Santa Clause... :-)

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