Ben Finney schrieb: > Leif K-Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> Ben Finney wrote: >>>>> So long as you're not distributing some or all of Python itself, >>>>> or a derivative work, the license for Python has no legal effect >>>>> on what license you choose for your own work. > >> I was replying to Ben Finney's claim that in a hypothetical world >> where Python was licensed under the GPL, there would still be no >> restriction on distributing Python programs under a closed-source >> license. > > 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.
IANAL - having said that: 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) And the GPL exactly requires that when a library licensed under it is used, that makes the using program GPL-licensed, too. And the LGPL (L for lesser or library) remedies that. If I recall correctly, the LGPL stats that you might use the headers and link against a LGPL-lib as long as you don't change it, and you are ok. So - I would certainly be very cautious when using GPL-based products if I wanted to build some closed-source-application on top of it. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
