GPL and Python modules.

[Grant Edwards]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

On 2004-10-25, Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstud y.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Why don't you just GPL the whole lot? Headache over, and a
>>>warm fuzzy feeling in its place.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I haven't said I won't. :) That said, providing a mechanism
>> for people to get the source does impose some overhead and
>> cost. And then there's the time/cost associated with
>> supporting the GPL'd source code _after_ you've provided
>> somebody with it.[/color]
>
> You don't have to provide any mechanism, nor provide any
> support. If you are giving them .pyc files, just include the
> .py files as well.[/color]

I guess I could just tell py2exe to also include the .py files
in the install directory. There's still the problem of the
time/cost required to support them.
[color=blue]
> But as long as you don't mind people seeing, redistributing,
> and modifying your source,[/color]

The problem is the time spent answering questions and helping
the people who have the source code.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I brought my BOWLING
at BALL -- and some DRUGS!!
visi.com

[Istvan Albert]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Ian Bicking wrote:
[color=blue]
> don't even have to GPL your code, you just have to abide by the GPL
> (i.e., provide source); you could distribute your code under any
> GPL-compatible license, such as a BSD-style license.[/color]

No if you derive from GPL then you must release your program
as GPL and you may not release it with a "GPL compatible"
license.

Otherwise it would be to easy to circumvent it, just get a
GPL program, add a comment, call it something else
and re-release it as BSD.

From the GPL FAQ:

Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL),
does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

Istvan.

[Charles Hixson]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Peter Otten wrote:
[color=blue]
>Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>
>[color=green]
>>Let's say I use a GPL'd python module (e.g. something installed
>>in site-packages) in an application.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>I'd say everything that uses a GPL'd module is derived work and must also be
>GPL'd. It doesn't matter how you distribute it. If the module is under the
>LGPL you could use it in a closed source app but must make available any
>changes to the original module.
>
>Peter
>
>
>[/color]
I don't think that's correct. If you distribute the source, then I
don't think that you need to GPL the code (and if you GPL the code, you
*must* distribute the source anyway...so.... ).

The thing is, the source, although it depends on the GPL code to execute
is not itself linked to the GPL code. It tells you (in the import
statement) that you'll need it, but that's a different matter. You
might just want to study how some part of it worked.

I doubt that this is much help to you though. Usually when people ask
such a question it's because they intend to distribute a closed source
version, and I don't think you can do that. (But don't take my advice
as a certainty. I'm quite biased in favor of the GPL.)

[Peter Hansen]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Grant Edwards wrote:[color=blue]
> I guess I could just tell py2exe to also include the .py files
> in the install directory. There's still the problem of the
> time/cost required to support them.
>[color=green]
>>But as long as you don't mind people seeing, redistributing,
>>and modifying your source,[/color]
>
>
> The problem is the time spent answering questions and helping
> the people who have the source code.[/color]

Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?!

-Peter

[Grant Edwards]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

On 2004-10-25, Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@e arthlink.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Let's say I use a GPL'd python module (e.g. something installed
>>>in site-packages) in an application.[/color]
>>
>>I'd say everything that uses a GPL'd module is derived work and must also be
>>GPL'd. It doesn't matter how you distribute it. If the module is under the
>>LGPL you could use it in a closed source app but must make available any
>>changes to the original module.[/color]
>
> I don't think that's correct. If you distribute the source, then I
> don't think that you need to GPL the code (and if you GPL the code, you
> *must* distribute the source anyway...so.... ).
>
> The thing is, the source, although it depends on the GPL code to execute
> is not itself linked to the GPL code.[/color]

This is equally true of a .pyc file that will require a GPL'd
module at runtime.
[color=blue]
> It tells you (in the import statement) that you'll need it,
> but that's a different matter. You might just want to study
> how some part of it worked.
>
> I doubt that this is much help to you though. Usually when
> people ask such a question it's because they intend to
> distribute a closed source version, and I don't think you can
> do that. (But don't take my advice as a certainty. I'm quite
> biased in favor of the GPL.)[/color]

The simplest thing to do is to just tell py2exe to install the
source code as well -- until the questions about "why my
modified souce code doesn't work" start arriving.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now that we're
at in LOVE, you can BUY
visi.com this GOLDFISH for a 48%
DISCOUNT.

[Grant Edwards]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

On 2004-10-25, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Grant Edwards wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I guess I could just tell py2exe to also include the .py files
>> in the install directory. There's still the problem of the
>> time/cost required to support them.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> But as long as you don't mind people seeing, redistributing,
>>> and modifying your source,[/color]
>>
>> The problem is the time spent answering questions and helping
>> the people who have the source code.[/color]
>
> Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]

Experience.

Customers seem to have no problem with not getting source code,
but once you _do_ give them source code then you have to
support it. Ignoring customers when they ask questions about
the source code has always proven in past experience to be "not
an option."

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! If elected, Zippy
at pledges to each and every
visi.com American a 55-year-old
houseboy...

[Peter Hansen]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Grant Edwards wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2004-10-25, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=green]
>>Grant Edwards wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>The problem is the time spent answering questions and helping
>>>the people who have the source code.[/color]
>>
>>Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]
>
> Experience.
>
> Customers seem to have no problem with not getting source code,
> but once you _do_ give them source code then you have to
> support it. Ignoring customers when they ask questions about
> the source code has always proven in past experience to be "not
> an option."[/color]

Evil, nasty customers, we hates them! They asks us questions
and pays us money for our precioussssss time.

-Gollum

[Jorge Godoy]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]

One has such an obligation here in .br. Our law demands that and a
license can't override what is stated in the law, so...

--
Godoy. <godoy@ieee.org >

[Peter Hansen]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Jorge Godoy wrote:[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
>[color=green]
>>Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> One has such an obligation here in .br. Our law demands that and a
> license can't override what is stated in the law, so...[/color]

Are you taking my question out of context? I really doubt
Brazilian law says that if I provide access to the source
code for open source software, I *must* provide "support".

What does this law say is the form of the support? Do I have
to provide a 24x7 call centre staffed with nice knowledgeable
people? Do I have to provide a detailed design document
showing how the modules interrelate? What kind of turnaround
on fixing bugs or responding to emailed questions is required
by this law?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing you aren't either, so
I suspect the argument is pointless. I don't believe that
I would have an significant obligation in the context in
which my comments were made, and in the unlikely event I
did, I really doubt that I would be required to provide
such support for free. I know, you didn't say that it
had to be for free. Well, I charge $1,000,000 per incident
for support requests for my open source software (at my
whim, usually waived though ;-). What does Brazilian
law say about that?

-Peter

[Jorge Godoy]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Jorge Godoy <godoy@ieee.org > writes:
[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]
>
> One has such an obligation here in .br. Our law demands that and a
> license can't override what is stated in the law, so...[/color]

Just to make it clear: I was referring to obligations to software
distributed/sold here...

--
Godoy. <godoy@ieee.org >

[Peter Hansen]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Jorge Godoy wrote:[color=blue]
> Jorge Godoy <godoy@ieee.org > writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]
>>
>>One has such an obligation here in .br. Our law demands that and a
>>license can't override what is stated in the law, so...[/color]
>
>
> Just to make it clear: I was referring to obligations to software
> distributed/sold here...[/color]

Now you tell me. :-)

It's probably the case in the majority of markets that one is
obligated to provide some kind of support for the products one
sells.

I'm betting these laws have not yet been applied to the
*freely provided source code* that accompanies open source
software, even if the distribution of the software itself
(not the source) is matched by a big fat cheque from the
customer. And I'll bet they won't be any time soon.

-Peter

[Jorge Godoy]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Are you taking my question out of context? I really doubt
> Brazilian law says that if I provide access to the source
> code for open source software, I *must* provide "support".[/color]

It says you must provide some kind of guarantee and a certain level of
support, no matter if the source is or isn't included.

I was not trying to take anything out of context, just citing one
occasion where you might have obligation to give support to a product
and the example was a law requirement.
[color=blue]
> What does this law say is the form of the support? Do I have
> to provide a 24x7 call centre staffed with nice knowledgeable
> people? Do I have to provide a detailed design document
> showing how the modules interrelate? What kind of turnaround
> on fixing bugs or responding to emailed questions is required
> by this law?[/color]

Read above and please, drop the rocks from your hands. I hope we are
here to sum up and share knowledge instead of fighting. If these are
serious questions, I might answer later. If they are just to start a
some kind of silly fight, I won't have lost my time.
[color=blue]
> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing you aren't either, so
> I suspect the argument is pointless. I don't believe that[/color]

No, I'm not. But I know some of these obligations -- and our lawiers
check the agreements to see if we are acting accordingly to the law
everytime there's some need (e.g. with a new client, with some new
development, etc.).
[color=blue]
> I would have an significant obligation in the context in
> which my comments were made, and in the unlikely event I
> did, I really doubt that I would be required to provide
> such support for free. I know, you didn't say that it
> had to be for free. Well, I charge $1,000,000 per incident
> for support requests for my open source software (at my
> whim, usually waived though ;-). What does Brazilian
> law say about that?[/color]

You are allowed to charge it if it's the agreement your client signed /
accepted.


See you,
--
Godoy. <godoy@ieee.org >

[Grant Edwards]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

On 2004-10-25, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Whatever gave you the idea you are obligated to provide support?![/color]
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> Customers seem to have no problem with not getting source code,
>> but once you _do_ give them source code then you have to
>> support it. Ignoring customers when they ask questions about
>> the source code has always proven in past experience to be "not
>> an option."[/color]
>
> Evil, nasty customers, we hates them! They asks us questions
> and pays us money for our precioussssss time.[/color]

Except they don't. (Pay that is.)

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... this must be what
at it's like to be a COLLEGE
visi.com GRADUATE!!

[Alex Martelli]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Istvan Albert <ialbert@mailbl ocks.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > Makes my _source_code_ a derived work, and therefore must be
> > GPL'd? That just doesn't sound right.[/color]
>
> Well doesn't your work derive some functionality
> from the imported code? Does your code work without
> the import?[/color]

Interesting questions. As long as there exists somewhere a module with
the same name, which you can import for the same purpose, I would say,
'no'.

For example, assume there is a commercial foo.py that is distributed
only under some costly and onerous license. An enterprising paladin of
free software implements and distributes a work-alike foo.py that
follows the same specifications of the commercial one, but is GPL'd.

Now, I write my masterpiece oof.py:

import foo
while foo.bar():
foo.baz()

Is this a derived work from the commercial foo.py? I don't see how --
it doesn't use _one bit_ from it. Is this a derived work from the GPL'd
foo.py? Again I don't see how -- it's perfectly able to work with the
commercial version instead of the GPL one.

Now suppose the commercial enterprise producing the original foo.py,
wilting under the competition of the GPL version, goes bankrupt. The
commercial foo.py is no longer available. Does this suddenly and
retroactively make my oof.py, whose existence predated the event, a
"derivative work" of the GPL foo.py?

I am not a lawyer, and it wouldn't matter much if I was, because it's
the _courts'_ opinion that counts; I don't think the GPL in general has
ever been tested in the courts, much less the specific provision that a
bunch of bits (oof.pyc, or oof.o if I process that a bit, etc) may be a
derived work of
another bunch of bits (foo.py), with which neither them nor any of their
predecessors in the chain (oof.py) share anything, just because, among
the many potential interface-compliant implementations of (foo.pyc,
foo.o, etc), with which oof.pyc might be dynamically connected to
perform intended purpose, one happens to be covered by GPL.

If I choose to link statically (to make oof.exe, etc), then it does
strike me as reasonable doctrine that the whole oof.exe IS a derived
work of foo.py, because it contains bits derived from it (a processed
foo.pyc). Since oof.exe (if the courts concur) is a derived work of (a
specific implementation of) foo.py, that implementation-foo.py's license
_should_ govern the conditions for copying/distributing oof.exe, which
may (and do, in the case of GPL) require source distribution under
certain licenses, etc, etc.

But if I distribute an oof.exe which does NOT include foo.pyc, and
requires the latter (in some interface-compatible implementation) to be
made available otherwise, then we're back into the contentious "dynamic
linking" issue. Until some courts start ruling on that issue, I guess
we'll all just have to be curious and fruitlessly debate our opinions.

[color=blue]
> People need to understand once and for all that
> GPL is about "forcing" you to make your program
> open source. Whether that sounds right
> or wrong to you, whether you like it or hate it
> is irrelevant.[/color]

Yes; what's most relevant is the courts' opinions in the matter, which
unfortunately so far we do not know.
[color=blue]
> Obviously no one like suddenly realize that they are
> bound by GPL but everyone must keep this in mind
> *before* choosing that path.[/color]

Of course: in particular, choosing to fight in court the GPL, or some
specific provision of it, including the specific one of interest (under
which condition is my oof.o a derived work of anything that is not part
of its precursor sources), will no doubt entail a large amount of odium
coming from large parts of the free software community. Even if a given
corporation's IP lawyers were certain that the "derived work from
dynamic linking" doctrive won't hold up in court, that corporation's
management still has a duty to the shareholders to consider whether the
PR costs of fighting that battle might not exceed the value to the
shareholders of doing that bit of dynamic linking. Personally, I'm very
curious to know how the case would go, but not curious enough to risk
spending my own money and attracting the odium on myself to make a test
case!-)

In practice, the issue is moot, since we _will_ all be submerged by
software patents anyway, compared to which these copyrights issues will
(I predict) soon appear as trifles.


Alex

[Jorge Godoy]

Re: GPL and Python modules.

Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Now you tell me. :-)[/color]

OK. You see you made some effort lifting those rocks agains me and you
didn't need that :-) I just thought I should make that clear after I
read my own post.
[color=blue]
> It's probably the case in the majority of markets that one is
> obligated to provide some kind of support for the products one sells.[/color]

And the license isn't a factor that redeems one from that obligation
here. That was my point. It doesn't matter what is written in GPL: all
parts of it that goes against the law for a software sold here to a
brazilian client are considered automatically invalid and disregarded in
court or somewhere else the problem is taken to.
[color=blue]
> I'm betting these laws have not yet been applied to the *freely
> provided source code* that accompanies open source software, even if
> the distribution of the software itself (not the source) is matched by
> a big fat cheque from the customer. And I'll bet they won't be any
> time soon.[/color]

There are several discussions on the validity of GPL here. Some say
that it is a valid license, other that it needs to be remodeled, and
other say that it isn't appliable at all.

I am subscribed to three or four mailing list with lots of lawyers
discussing that (IANAL, but I know a lot of them ;-)).



As a side note... Our government is going towards free (as in free
speech) software (one example of that is http://www.softwarelivre.gov.br
-- which is powered by Zope and uses Plone ;-)) so that might make
things easier should a conflict come true (but, then, even the
government can't go against the law -- but they have some power to
change it... ;-)).

There is an "approved" version of a translation of GPL (yes, if the
license isn't in Brazilian Portuguese it is also invalid) and some work
at the congress to make free software completely viable and end with the
uncertainty I talked above.

I hope it succeeds.


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