RetroSearch Browse

Sun Jan 29 19:39:30 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060203.html

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> You also need to ask about the cost of defending against a lawsuit by
> the FSF, which is both the copyright holder of the library and the
> primary advocate of the interpretation that a work which is intended
> to be linked with another work is a derivative.  I think the FSF
> pretty much would have to fight any claims that contest its
> interpretation of the concept of "derived work", because any
> interpretation that requires a direct source-to-source copy will make
> the GPL irrelevant.

So would you just like to see the readline module to be removed from
the Python distribution?

I personally don't, because I don't believe that the status quo
conflicts with FSF's interpretation of the GPL, atleast not wrt.
to anything the PSF does (i.e. source and Windows distribution).

Also, I firmly believe that the FSF would *not* sue the PSF, but
instead first ask that the status is corrected.

Notice that the LGPL 2.1 somewhat elaborates on what the FSF
considers "derived" wrt. linking:

# When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
# shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
# combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
# General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
# entire combination fits its criteria of freedom.

So it is the act of linking (and probably to some extent, the act
of compiling) that creates the derivative work.

Regards,
Martin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060203.html below:

[Python-Dev] DRAFT: python-dev Summary for 2006-01-01 through 2006-01-15