Licenses...

[Robin Becker]

In message <37AF12D3.71240BA7 at lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
<mal at lemburg.com> writes
>Robin Becker wrote:
...
>
>If TCL were under GPL then you'd have to ship both TCL and
>your extension under GPL. But you're lucky: TCL is shipped under
>a more liberal license, so you can distribute your code in any
>form you like with or without TCL, as binary or source.
>
>Note that I just posted this because more and more GPLed extensions
>for Python are popping up -- if you want to include these in a
>product, you'll have to take some care to follow the extension's
>license. Otherwise, including the extension's code would be
>simply illegal. In most cases, the author will probably also
>distribute his/her code under a different (payed) license. In some
>cases (like the GNU readline module, for which Python includes
>an extension), the authors will probably not... e.g. shipping
>Python with linked in readline support (as DLL or statically)
>causes that Python interpreter to fall under GPL and with it,
>all extensions linked to it. The Python code run by the interpreter
>is not forced under GPL (otherwise all gcc compiled software
>would turn GPLed...).
...
my point was that since my extension can be used to link tcl to these
GPL'd dlls it might dynamically compromise the GPL status. Suppose that
python could be shipped with lazy links to readline would the potential
link matter?
-- 
Robin Becker