GPL and Python modules.

[Jorge Godoy]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:

> Now you tell me.  :-)

OK.  You see you made some effort lifting those rocks agains me and you
didn't need that :-)  I just thought I should make that clear after I
read my own post.

> It's probably the case in the majority of markets that one is
> obligated to provide some kind of support for the products one sells.

And the license isn't a factor that redeems one from that obligation
here.  That was my point.  It doesn't matter what is written in GPL: all
parts of it that goes against the law for a software sold here to a
brazilian client are considered automatically invalid and disregarded in
court or somewhere else the problem is taken to. 

> I'm betting these laws have not yet been applied to the *freely
> provided source code* that accompanies open source software, even if
> the distribution of the software itself (not the source) is matched by
> a big fat cheque from the customer.  And I'll bet they won't be any
> time soon.

There are several discussions on the validity of GPL here.  Some say
that it is a valid license, other that it needs to be remodeled, and
other say that it isn't appliable at all.

I am subscribed to three or four mailing list with lots of lawyers
discussing that (IANAL, but I know a lot of them ;-)). 



As a side note... Our government is going towards free (as in free
speech) software (one example of that is http://www.softwarelivre.gov.br
-- which is powered by Zope and uses Plone ;-)) so that might make
things easier should a conflict come true (but, then, even the
government can't go against the law -- but they have some power to
change it... ;-)).

There is an "approved" version of a translation of GPL (yes, if the
license isn't in Brazilian Portuguese it is also invalid) and some work
at the congress to make free software completely viable and end with the
uncertainty I talked above.

I hope it succeeds.


Be seeing you,
-- 
Godoy.     <godoy at ieee.org>