GPL and Python modules.

[Jorge Godoy]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:

> I really think it says that about the *product*, not its source code.
> The source code is not being provided as part of the sale, it is being
> made available separately.

IANAL, but if the license requires me to give the source code if it was
requested without costs -- except for the media and delivery of it --
then it looks like part of the package to me (i.e., the product works
but is not "complete").

On the other hand, I agree that supporting the source code is not an
obligation. 

> It's not even necessary that it be possible to use that source to
> rebuild the product without purchasing other pieces of software, such
> as commercial compilers.

Here I agree with you.  You also don't have to give the source code for
compilers, system libraries or the OS itself.  You don't either have to
give a license of the OS where the software will run in, so that makes
it clear that these are separate things.

On the other hand, selling something and saying that if the customer
wants he can get the "diagrams, specs and building rules" to rebuild the
same product -- making it clear what the requirements are -- might make
some judge interpret that as if the given source code would have to work
and be able to rebuild everything given that all required tools are
available.  I don't know if support for setting up the environment
variables, locating libraries, fixing some Makefile, etc. would be
considered an extra or not.  I digress here, of course, but it is hard
to think of what an unchanged code might need in terms of support.

Reading some new posts from Grant, I saw that these support requests
arrive through their sales people, so I think they aren't too complex or
related to something like building an entirely new product using their
software as a module.


What I think?  I'd like to get that support if I were buying and I'd
hate to give it for free if I were selling. :-)  I'd try making it very
clear on the contract. 

> Grant was talking about the cost of supporting the *source code* when
> its required that it be made available because of GPL-type license
> terms, and I really would be very surprised if Brazilian law had
> anything to say about that.

No, it doesn't even make it clear if GPL is or not supported at all.  I
think that it is the same everywhere, but software here is treated like
art, like a book.  It is subject to intelectual properties laws.  We
don't have -- AFAIR -- specific software laws.  Yet.

> I could be wrong.  You're right about the rocks though: sorry about
> that. :-)

Don't worry.  :-)  I'll still read your posts and try learning something
from them :-)

> -Peter


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