Re: Python programs always open source?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:46:13PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Hmmm... The copyright file I have for GNU C Library looks to be LGPL:
"""
Copyright (C) 1991,92,93,94,9 5,96,97,98,99,2 000,2001,2002,2 003 Free Software
Foundation, Inc.
The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
"""
The difference between the GPL and the LGPL is the linking thing. Whether or
not it would hold up in court the FSF believes that GPL libraries mean only
GPL or GPL compatible licences are allowed to link, while anything can link
(dynamically not statically) to LGPL libraries.
"""
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software
developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for
a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary
developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot
use it.
Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The
most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for
proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the
library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to
use the Library GPL for that library.
"""
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:46:13PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
"Diez B. Roggisch" <deets@nospam.w eb.dewrites:
>
>
And just about every program on a GNU/Linux system uses the libc
library, which is distributed under the GPL. That license *only*
affects works that are *derivative* of the libc library.
>
Ben Finney schrieb:
Not true for the GPL. Part of python is the library, which you
either use explicit (I can't imagine a program that doesn't, beyond
print "hello world"), or implicit (sys and os are AFAIX used
internally to bootstrap the interpreter)
My claim (and IANAL) is that it doesn't matter *what* license
Python is distributed under; unless you do something with Python
that is a right of the copyright holder, such as distributing part
or all of Python, the copyright license terms of Python have no
legal effect on what license you choose for your own work.
Python is distributed under; unless you do something with Python
that is a right of the copyright holder, such as distributing part
or all of Python, the copyright license terms of Python have no
legal effect on what license you choose for your own work.
either use explicit (I can't imagine a program that doesn't, beyond
print "hello world"), or implicit (sys and os are AFAIX used
internally to bootstrap the interpreter)
And just about every program on a GNU/Linux system uses the libc
library, which is distributed under the GPL. That license *only*
affects works that are *derivative* of the libc library.
"""
Copyright (C) 1991,92,93,94,9 5,96,97,98,99,2 000,2001,2002,2 003 Free Software
Foundation, Inc.
The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
"""
The difference between the GPL and the LGPL is the linking thing. Whether or
not it would hold up in court the FSF believes that GPL libraries mean only
GPL or GPL compatible licences are allowed to link, while anything can link
(dynamically not statically) to LGPL libraries.
"""
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software
developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for
a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary
developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot
use it.
Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The
most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for
proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the
library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to
use the Library GPL for that library.
"""
>
>
No, only when a new work *derives from* the existing work does
copyright on the existing work take effect.
>
You may be thinking of the "linking" clause, which depends on the
*inclusion of* existing header files from the library code, supplied
under the GPL. There's no such concept in an interpreted language like
Python: you write your program in the Python language without
including a single piece of the original in your work.
>
The GPL itself is clear on the fact that its terms cannot claim
anything that is not granted to the copyright holder -- and
*execution* of a library is not a right over which the library author
has any rights.
>
Even if execution (or "use") of a program library, without including
*any* of its code in your own work, were a right the library author
could restrict, no free software program can place any restriction on
execution (otherwise it's trivially non-free). If Python's license
were ever to have such a restrictive term, it would likely be
unenforcible, but would certainly disqualify it from inclusion in any
free operating system.
>
Copyright is currently weighted greatly in favour of copyright
holders, but please don't buy into the absolute-power rhetoric more
than necessary.
>
--
\ "Yesterday I told a chicken to cross the road. It said, 'What |
`\ for?'" -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
And the GPL exactly requires that when a library licensed under it
is used, that makes the using program GPL-licensed, too.
is used, that makes the using program GPL-licensed, too.
No, only when a new work *derives from* the existing work does
copyright on the existing work take effect.
>
You may be thinking of the "linking" clause, which depends on the
*inclusion of* existing header files from the library code, supplied
under the GPL. There's no such concept in an interpreted language like
Python: you write your program in the Python language without
including a single piece of the original in your work.
>
The GPL itself is clear on the fact that its terms cannot claim
anything that is not granted to the copyright holder -- and
*execution* of a library is not a right over which the library author
has any rights.
>
Even if execution (or "use") of a program library, without including
*any* of its code in your own work, were a right the library author
could restrict, no free software program can place any restriction on
execution (otherwise it's trivially non-free). If Python's license
were ever to have such a restrictive term, it would likely be
unenforcible, but would certainly disqualify it from inclusion in any
free operating system.
>
Copyright is currently weighted greatly in favour of copyright
holders, but please don't buy into the absolute-power rhetoric more
than necessary.
>
--
\ "Yesterday I told a chicken to cross the road. It said, 'What |
`\ for?'" -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Comment