GNU GPL & Python stand-alone packages from py2exe

[Martin v. Löwis]

Ulrich Goertz <u at g0ertz.de> writes:

> 1) Since the Python license is "GPL compatible" this should be 
> no problem, 

Correct.

> but what does that mean in practice? Can/should I put
> the whole package under the GPL and omit the Python license?

No, you cannot put the entire package under the GPL; you need to
include the PSF license agreement and notice of copyright (see clause
2 of the PSF license).

> Or can I just put my own code under the GPL, and use the 
> Python license for the Python part, although I bundle both
> into one .exe-file and a few dll's?

Yes, that is what you gain by a "GPL-compatible" license: the GPL
would not allow to distribute your software in this way if the Python
license was not GPL compatible.

> 2) Would I have to put the source code of the Python interpreter
> on the CD, too? 

Upon reading the GPL, that indeed appears to be the case:

  If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
  Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
  works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply
  to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

This section would apply to Python: Python is an identifiable section
of your work that can be considered independent, so the Python
licensing terms apply when distributing Python separately. However:

  But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
  is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
  be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
  licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
  part regardless of who wrote it.

So the GPL applies to the work 'as a whole', and therefore, the same
source distribution clause applies.

> 3) Would it be more suitable to release the source code of my
> application under the GPL, and release the stand-alone package
> under another ("closed") license which would not request the 
> source code to be included

If you own all of the code, or have permission of all other authors to
distribute their code without providing source, you can certain
operate that way.

> As a side note, I do understand that the GPL is not as free
> as other licenses (the Python license, say), but I do not 
> want to give others the possibility to do what they want with
> my code without any restrictions. So I think the GPL is
> suitable for me. My questions are more about how to proceed
> in practice in this case.

I think 'freeness' is difficult to measure, so it is hard to say what
is 'more free' and 'less free'. I think RMS argues that the GPL is
actually 'more free', since it not only gives freedom to the author of
the software, but also freedom to the community of users. Some people
agree, and some disagree.

Regards,
Martin