On 4/29/07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you created the bindings using ctypes or similar, where there's no
> actual linking taking place, I think it's all OK.
The specific technical mechanism used to link to libfoo doesn't matter. For
the purposes of the GPL, it matters whethe
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
>> dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
>> for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-sou
El sábado, 21 de abril de 2007 a las 15:10:31 +0530, Shriramana Sharma escribía:
> Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
> dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
> Now I create Python binding to that library - pyfoo. Now I would lik
On 4/21/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all.
Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-source
consumers.
Now I
Hello all.
Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library is
dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial licence. GPL is
for open-source consumers and commercial licence is for closed-source
consumers.
Now I create Python binding to that library - pyfoo. Now I
5 matches
Mail list logo
