On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:25:10 -0600, John Hunter wrote: > The question is: does shipping a backend which imports a module that > links with GPL code make some or all of the library GPL. This > question is complicated, in my mind at least, by several factors.
I believe the best and most honest answer right now is, "Nobody knows." In fact, a careful reading of at least the LGPL (which I recently carefully read before putting a project under it, so I can speak to it where I can't speak to the GPL with quite as much confidence) shows that it is almost hopelessly based on the C way of doing things, with "linking" and "executables", that not only doesn't apply to Python, but doesn't apply to a lot of other modern languages as well. (I am fairly confident that the GPL has identical shortcomings, I just haven't read it as recently.) Specifically, I put a Javascript project under the LGPL and felt compelled to augment it with an appendix of just under 3K, just to make the LGPL make sense. I had to redefine "library", clarify the "work based on the library" and "work using the library" distinction in a context where there is no "linking" occurring, and correctly apply my Appendix to the clause that allows you to use future versions of the LGPL. And my problem is much simpler than yours. (I'm in control of the license, so I was able to simply clarify it, but there would still be the problem of what the raw LGPL would mean to someone had I not amended it, so from a certain point of view there is some similarity despite the difference in our positions; it is the user dilemma that prompted my solution.) Right now, when it comes down to it, I don't think we can even define "program" in a legal sense that is clear and useful; without that, trying to *deeply* understand the (L)GPL is probably a hopeless affair. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
