On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:48:12 -0500 Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to know the intent of the authors, that is > that libraries covered by the GPL would infect programs > they are linked with, whether it's dynamically or > statically. The Library (now Lesser) GPL was created to to > allow programs to be linked with LGPL'ed libraries without > infecting the program. If the library in question was > released under the LGPL, the authors of the GPL say you > can use it. Otherwise, they say not. But see the above > paragraphs about judges, copyright holders and lawyers.
I have to say that in my conversations with developers, the choice of the LGPL for Python libraries is only a matter of signalling intent to library-users. All the ones I've talked to seemed to think that the GPL allows dynamic linking anyway, but they wanted to avoid any question about it. Some other authors go ahead and use the GPL but provide a notice of their interpretation along with the package. As I read the GPL itself (but I am not a lawyer), it cannot possibly restrict you from doing this (because your code does not include a copy of the GPL'd work), and it explicitly allows you to distribute the GPL'd library with your application (provided you provide source code and keep it separated in obvious ways from your own code -- such as putting it in a separate archive file, etc). That's the "mere aggregation" clause that allows that. However, it is true that the FSF is unhappy with this loophole and would like to pretend it isn't there, so those warning you that you could get sued are probably right. I just think that you would be in the right in such a case and should win. It is interesting to note that the FSF holds the position that the language that "gives you this right" *doesn't* -- it just clarifies the fact that you already hold that right, because it is provided by "fair use". Their position is that it is not possible to restrict the *use* of software you have legally acquired, because copyright only controls copying. In order to take away that right (according to the FSF theory expressed in the preamble of the GPL), you must have a *contract*, not merely a *license*. Generally if no consideration was paid (it was zero-cost), and nothing was signed, there can be no such contract. This is in conflict with the "click-through" EULA theory, which the FSF denies is legally binding. Thus their own arguments contradict their desire to control your use of the software. Mind you, I'm not necessarily rooting for either side of this -- I'm just interpreting what I've read. The GPL is a fascinating read, BTW, and it isn't particularly long. ;-) Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
