[Python-Dev] GPL'd python code vs Python2.6 linked against OpenSSL
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Thu Mar 10 11:36:36 CET 2011
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Mar 10 11:36:36 CET 2011
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] GPL'd python code vs Python2.6 linked against OpenSSL
- Next message: [Python-Dev] GPL'd python code vs Python2.6 linked against OpenSSL
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Note that your interpretation would allow Python to distribute > arbitrarily licensed libraries and GPL programs to link with them. > That is surely not the intent of the authors of the GPL, and in the > past, the FSF has explicitly restricted the interpretation of "system > library". Note that it is ultimately up to a court to interpret these words of the GPL, not to the FSF lawyer. > Specifically, in > > > "Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component > > (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system > > (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to > > produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. > > the word "essential" would refer to running the compiler or the > operating system or interpreter, not to a component essential to > running the program but in general optional for using the system. Maybe my English is not good enough - I read that to mean that the compiler itself is a major component of the system (and thus doesn't need to be distributed along with the source of the GPL'ed program). Note that it explicitly also says that a "object code interpreter" used to run "it" (the executable) is a major component, which would explicitly declare Python a major component (as long as it's actually distributed with the system). If your interpetation was right and Python is *not* a major component, then any GPL'ed Python application would need to distribute the source code of Python along with its own source code, and with that the source of all libraries that are not major components themselves. Also, if your interpretation was right, it wouldn't be possible to license Java programs under the GPL, since the JVM wouldn't be a major component, and hence you would need to distribute JVM's source code under the terms of the GPL (which you may or may not be able to today, but surely couldn't over many years during which many GPL'ed Java programs were written). Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] GPL'd python code vs Python2.6 linked against OpenSSL
- Next message: [Python-Dev] GPL'd python code vs Python2.6 linked against OpenSSL
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list