Hi,
On 01/11/2011 12:27 AM, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
On
In fact, afaict from your responses of coming up with imaginative
fairy-tale scenarios where your code spits out valid PyQt which your users
then may use after downloading GPL'd PyQt (did I get that right ?) I might
even say you are trolling.
See, I wrote a clear fictitious example -- and I asked for help/discussion
on that but people started talking in-general and teaching license classes.
this irritated me.
Well, in that case the irritation stems out of your misunderstanding of /why/
they were speaking of licenses. To aid your understanding of the implications of
the license were being demonstrated by comparing different licenses.
I said - I am writing my a code which is close source and I have not given
any rights to user. {i am against it but I am just making an example}
Now, I am not distributing PyQT to users. All I am given a close source
application which won't run without PyQt.
Here in lies the problem. When you distributed your PyQt based closed source
application, you have already distributed PyQt ! ...since at somepoint in your
code you are calling 'import PyQt' and AFAIK all tools that convert python code
to an binary 'exe' format essentially create some sort of isolated python
environment including just the modules required and then compress it up as a
self-extracting and installing executable.
Users are downloading PyQT.
This will not be used by your closed source binary because the binary will use a
custom python (think in terms similar to virtualenv) with a custom PYTHONPATH.
So In this process did I made any copyright infringement... I was expecting
yes or no kind of answer.
The answer then is yes.
I gave a clear example.. I am unable to notice any copyright infringement
in it.
...well there is and this is where the discussion about PyQt GPL Vs PySide's
LGPL is relevant.
I was asking like this - how does it matter Compiler I am using , I can use
Propitiatory License IDE too - I can license my code to any license at my
will. How the decision of my code's license depends on Compilers License.
for me libraries are also a tool. I am just using them for code building. As
long as I am not giving a bundled close solution to user, I need not to
worry about commercial license to do it. But I am not bundling them.
You should learn how libraries work. Libraries are not just a compile time
thing. When you 'link' against a library, the binary gets a reference to where
to 'load' the library at runtime. This is the reason why even if you don't
intend to do devel work, you cannot run some applications in linux without
installing the dependent libraries (as opposed to when you do intend to do devel
work, you install the -devel packages).
(dodging the pedants: yes I know of static linking but I am trying to keep it
simple here).
So, when you distribute a close source python app., your exe will also include
the library that your application needs to load at runtime.
, I am
just giving my application to some license, how does this decision depends
on license of libraries. I might be wrong at some where in my fundas or
unable to grab the "requirement" that why should one buy commercial license
of PyQt. So I asked this question. I think it was very much clear from my
post . If not, one can ask to clarify what I want to know..
Posting/Replying on what license to use, what license gives what and one
can sell GPL code too etc and so many other things some guys replied. That
gave me strong irritation.
I hope my reply didn't give you strong irritation. If what I wrote made sense to
you go back to the thread and re-read it, you'll see a natural flow there about
the discussion based on the assumption that you know how libraries work.
cheers,
- steve
--
random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/
what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/
_______________________________________________
BangPypers mailing list
BangPypers@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
