Python 2.0.1c1 - GPL-compatible release candidate

[Mike C. Fletcher]

To clarify (because I seem to be confused):

This is a GPL-compatible release, not a GPL release.  That is, you could
include a copy of python with your GPL program, but Python itself is not
GPL-d because it can be acquired without agreeing to the GPL (from Guido).
So unless, for some reason, you need to use a modified version of the
"xxobject.c and xxmodule.c" files, which are only available from a GPL-d
derived work, your python extension would not be GPL tainted, as you could
use the less restrictive python license for those files.  You should be able
to distribute your extension under whatever license you like.

When building GPL applications, however, you would have to consider the
license of the whole work. To distribute a GPL application (using python
extensions) as GPL-ware, you would need to make sure all the extensions are
GPL-compatible (i.e. that you can provide the source with the
restrictions/permissions required by the GPL).  From what I understand, you
need either to have been merely be aggregated with the system, or be able to
produce source etc. without further restrictions than those seen in GPL
works.

Forcing all extensions to be GPL-compatible is not something I think Guido
(or anyone) is really looking to impose on extension writers.

Enjoy,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: python-list-admin at python.org
[mailto:python-list-admin at python.org]On Behalf Of Will Ware
Sent: June 15, 2001 00:51
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: Python 2.0.1c1 - GPL-compatible release candidate


Guido van Rossum (guido at digicool.com) wrote:
> With a sigh of relief I announce Python 2.0.1c1 -- the first Python
> release in a long time whose license is fully compatible with the GPL

Congratulations to you and to Moshe! I know this has been something
you've wanted to do for a while.

Just to make sure I understand the way GPL coverage extends to derived
works, here is what I think is true.

Python scripts and programs are not derived works, and are only GPL-ware
if their author or copyright holder declares them to be so.

C extensions (the kinds of things I get by cutting and pasting from
xxmodule.c and xxobject.c) *are* derived works, and the GPL coverage
of 2.0.1 would therefore cover them as well, should I choose to
distribute them.

One thing I don't know is whether *any* C extensions to 2.0.1 would be
derived works. If I'm such a Python-extension-writing guru that I don't
need to cut and paste from xxobject.c and xxmodule.c, then it seems
unlikely my extensions would be derived works, especially if they are
legacy things from one of the pre-GPL Python versions. The same would
be true of SWIG-generated extensions, I would imagine.

But the GPL extends its coverage not only to derived works in the obvious
sense, but also to code which is statically linked with a GPL program.
If my extensions are statically linked to 2.0.1, then by that criterion
they would also be GPL-ware.

I don't know if the same is true of dynamically-linked extensions.

Have I got any of that right, or should I go back on my meds now?

--
-----------------------------------+---------------------
 22nd century: Esperanto, geodesic | Will Ware
 domes, hovercrafts, metric system | wware at world.std.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list