On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:13:46 -0700, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Churches wrote: >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of Robert Kern >>>Sent: Tuesday, 26 October 2004 11:34 AM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: GPL and Python modules. >>> >>> >>>Tim Churches wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 11:12, Robert Kern wrote: >>> >>>>>Whether just using system calls is simply "normal use" for a GPLd OS >>>>>kernel or this is simply a special exception to the GPL for >>> >>>Linux only >>> >>>>>is something that a court will have to decide. But such a >>> >>>suit would >>> >>>>>have to be about some other GPL kernel, not Linux. >>>> >>>> >>>>Looks like it is a special exception for the Linux kernel >>> >>>(or whatever >>> >>>>other Linux code is distributed with this COPYING file. >>> >>>Doesn't apply >>> >>>>to other GPLed code. >>> >>>Well, not necessarily. It certainly isn't phrased as one. It >>>is at least >>>a statement of someone's (Linus's?) belief that standard applications >>>that only use system calls and running on Linux are not >>>derivative works >>>with respect to Linux. >> >> >> Yes, so it is a specific exemption to the GPL granted by the copyright >> holder(s) of the Linux kernel code. The GPL allows the copyright holder to >> grant exemptions to the GPL privisions as they see fit - but no-one else. > >It's still phrased as Linus's interpretation of what constitutes a >derivative work and what constitutes normal use of the GPLed kernel. >He's specifically saying that userland applications are not derivative >works not "even though they are derivative works, they are excepted from >the requirements of this license." > >>>Are Windows programs actual derivative >>>works of >>>the Windows kernel? Does the Windows EULA make a statement about the >>>derivative status of applications? >> >> >> No, and no. An important point of difference between the world views held >> by, say, Steve Ballmer and, say, Richard Stallman. > >The world views of Ballmer and Stallman are irrelevant to whether >something is a derivative or not. They may be relevant to whether one >may get sued or not, but that's a different issue. > >In any case, Stallman does not appear to believe that userland >applications are automatically derivative works of the kernel: > >http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem > >"""If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the >kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two >separate programs--but you have to do it properly.""" I would be careful in taking legal advise from Richard Stallman. The GPL merely states that*: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: After that, all notion of "derived work" falls on the appropriate copyright law of the country in question. I suspect that following Stallman's verdicts won't cause you to violate the GPL, but I would hardly be willing to be certain about going to court over a GPLed module imported into an unfree python program. Scott Robinson * note that I believe that this is fair use. According to the GPL, you can only distribute it unmodified. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
