Tim Peters wrote: > > [Tim and MAL talking about the FSF and their views] > > [Tim and MAL showing off as hobby advocates ;-)] > > >>> 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 ? > > > 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. > > Understood, but have you reread your question above, which I've said twice I > can't make sense of? I know, it was backwards. Take an example: I have a program which wants to process MP3 files in some way. Now because of some stroke is luck, all Python MP3 modules out there are covered by the GPL. Now I could write an application which uses a certain interface and then tell the user to install the MP3 module separately. As Barry mentioned, this setup will cause distribution of my application to be illegal because I could have only done so by putting the application under the GPL. > You should read RMS on why glibc is under the LGPL: > > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html > > It will at least disabuse you of the notion that RMS and you are after the > same thing <wink>. :-) Let's stop this discussion and get back to those cheerful things like Christmas Bells and Santa Clause... :-) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4