(offtopic) RE: [Python-Dev] Python 2.0 license and GPL
M.-A. Lemburg
mal@lemburg.com
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:25:31 +0100
Tim Peters wrote:
>
> I'm not going to argue about the GPL. Take it up with the FSF!
Sorry, I got a bit carried away -- I don't want to take it up
with the FSF, simply because I couldn't care less. What's bugging
me is that this one guy is splitting the OSS world in two even
though both halfs actually want the same thing: software which
you can use for free with full source code. I find that a very
poor situation.
> I will say
> that if you do get the FSF's attention, Moglen will have an instant counter
> to any objection you're likely to raise -- he's been thinking about this for
> 10 years, and he's heard it all. And in our experience, RMS won't commit to
> anything before running it past Moglen.
>
> [MAL]
> > But it's his [RMS's] piece of work, isn't it ? He's the one who can
> > change it.
>
> Akin to saying Python is Guido's piece of work. Yes, no, kinda, more true
> at some times than others, ditto respects. RMS has consistently said that
> any changes for the next version of the GPL will take at least a year, due
> to extensive legal review required first. Would be more clearly true to say
> that the first version of the GPL was RMS's alone -- but version 2 came out
> in 1991.
Point taken.
> > ...
> > Strange, then how come he sees the choice of law clause as a problem:
> > without explicitely ruling out the applicability of the UN CISC,
> > this clause is waived by it anyway... at least according to a
> > specialist on software law here in Germany.
> > ... [and other "who knows?" objections] ...
>
> Guido quoted the text of your Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:19:09 +0200 "Re:
> [License-py20] Re: GPL incompability as seen from Europe" msg to Moglen, who
> dismissed it almost offhandedly as "layman's commentary". You'll have to
> ask him why: MAL, we're not lawyers. We're incompetent to have this
> discussion -- or at least I am, and Moglen thinks you are too <wink>.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I am able to apply common sense and
know about German trade laws. Anyway, here a reference which
covers all the controversial subjects. It's in German, but these
guys qualify as lawyers ;-) ...
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/index.html
There's also a book on the subject in German which covers
all aspects of software licensing. Here's the reference in
case anyone cares:
Jochen Marly, Softwareüberlassungsverträge
C.H. Beck, München, 2000
> >>> Another issue: since Python doesn't link Python scripts, is it
> >>> still true that if one (pure) Python package is covered by the GPL,
> >>> then all other packages needed by that application will also fall
> >>> under GPL ?
>
> [Tim]
> >> Sorry, couldn't make sense of the question. Just as well,
> >> since you should ask about it on a GNU forum anyway <wink>.
>
> [MAL]
> > Isn't this question (whether the GPL virus applies to byte-code
> > as well) important to Python programmers as well ?
>
> I don't know -- like I said, I couldn't make sense of the question, i.e. I
> couldn't figure out what it is you're asking. I *suspect* it's based on a
> misunderstanding of the GPL; for example, gcc is a GPL'ed application that
> requires stuff from the OS in order to do its job of compiling, but that
> doesn't mean that every OS it runs on falls under the GPL. The GPL contains
> no restrictions on *use*, it restricts only copying, modifying and
> distributing (the specific rights granted by copyright law). I don't see
> any way to read the GPL as restricting your ability to distribute a GPL'ed
> program P on its own, no matter what the status of the packages that P may
> rely upon for operation.
This is very controversial: if an application Q needs a GPLed
library P to work, then P and Q form a new whole in the sense of
the GPL. And this even though P wasn't even distributed together
with Q. Don't ask me why, but that's how RMS and folks look at it.
It can be argued that the dynamic linker actually integrates
P into Q, but is the same argument valid for a Python program Q
which relies on a GPLed package P ? (The relationship between
Q and P is one of providing interfaces -- there is no call address
patching required for the setup to work.)
> The GPL is also not viral in the sense that it cannot infect an unwitting
> victim. Nothing whatsoever you do or don't do can make *any* other program
> Q "fall under" the GPL -- only Q's owner can set the license for Q. The GPL
> purportedly can prevent you from distributing (but not from using) a program
> that links with a GPL'ed program, but that doesn't appear to be what you're
> asking about. Or is it?
No. What's viral about the GPL is that you can turn an application
into a GPLed one by merely linking the two together -- that's why
e.g. the libc is distributed under the LGPL which doesn't have this
viral property.
> If you were to put, say, mxDateTime, under the GPL, then yes, I believe the
> FSF would claim I could not distribute my program T that uses mxDateTime
> unless T were also under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. But if
> mxDateTime is not under the GPL, then nothing I do with T can magically
> change the mxDateTime license to the GPL (although if your mxDateTime
> license allows me to redistribute mxDateTime under a different license, then
> it allows me to ship a copy of mxDateTime under the GPL).
>
> That said, the whole theory of GPL linking is muddy to me, especially since
> the word "link" (and its variants) doesn't appear in the GPL.
True.
> > Oh well, nevermind... it's still nice to hear that CNRI and RMS
> > have finally made up their minds to render Python GPL-compatible --
> > whatever this means ;-)
>
> I'm not sure it means anything yet. CNRI and the FSF believed they reached
> agreement before, but that didn't last after Moglen and Kahn each figured
> out what the other was really suggesting.
Oh boy...
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company: http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/