Bulba! wrote:
Oh, and by the way - since Python bytecode can be relatively
easily decompiled to source, could it interpreted to "really" count as source code and not binary? What are the consequences of releasing code _written in Python_ as GPLed?
Well, to your first question, in a word 'no', it wouldn't count as source code. To quote the GPL section 3:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
As the preferred form for making changes to Python programs would be Python source, that's what counts. This is also what forbids obfuscated code. If you were to *write* Python bytecode, as a form of assembly, then of course that's another matter.
I've released Python source as GPL and as far as I'm concerned it ought to work, even though that's not explicitly covered. As the only way you're going to receive my program is by receiving the source then you'll end up having it and everything's basically OK. If someone tries to make a binary from that and distribute that without also making the source available then the GPL obviously comes into effect, and the game is up. I haven't sought legal (or FSF) input on this matter though, it's just my understanding. You can be fairly confident that the GPL is iron clad though, it would have been dragged through every court in the land by now if it wasn't.
I've also followed the LGPL/GPL library debate, and while I have opinions on that as well, this is getting long in the tooth already.
Stefan, -- Stefan Axelsson (email at http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~sax) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
