Paul Rubin wrote: > Jeff Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Your only solution would be a proprietary license that states you >>purchased this program and don't have the right to pass it on to >>others, similar to ActiveState or somesuch. > > It sounds like that's what Kent wants to do with the apps that he's > building. That's not permitted under the GPL, if the apps contain or > are based on GPL code. What's not totally clear is whether that > affects Karrigell apps (apps that run under Karrigell and call > Karrigell functions but don't modify Karrigell itself).
I believe that it's the FSF's view that importing a GPLed module triggers the GPL conditions in analogy with dynamic linking for C and other such languages (presuming the code is being distributed at all). I think it's reasonably safe to say that most authors who choose the GPL deliberately also assume the FSF's interpretation. Debian, for example, also holds to this interpretation and will reject a GPL-incompatible Python package that imports a GPLed Python package as not legal to distribute. No court has ever ruled on the issue, and some people, like Larry Rosen, think it's likely that a judge would not choose the FSF's interpretation. I think Rosen is probably correct. However, I always assume that the author intends the FSF's interpretation unless they make an explicit exception, and I respect that intention. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
