Mailing List Archive

Licenses...
phil wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Aug 99 12:31:22 GMT, philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37AA804D.9A1317C0@houbits.com> nhead@houbits.com "Nigel Head" writes:
> >> There's no licence statement in the distribution at all for now --
> >> my intention is that anyone can use the contents anyway they want,
> >> for non-commercial purposes, providing they keep a reference to the
> >> original source. Oh yes, and I can't take any responsibility for errors.
> >>
> >> Perhaps one of you experienced people can offer some quick advice as to what I
> >> need to do -- do I need to just add a licence.txt file or must I add a header
> >> to every file? What standard text can I use? Is my intent compatible with the
> >> GPL?
> This post raised some concerns for me since i have a Python extension
> that i was going to add to our latest product release. The product is
> not written in Python, nor does it require Python to be running and
> the extension is there because i thought it was cool. However, i have
> to ask whether it is legal to retain this functionality.

Python itself ships with a BSD style license, which means that
you can use it commercially or non-commercially without having
to pay a fee, but instead including a quote of the license in
your products documentation. You are not obliged to include the
source of your extension or Python program when distributing
them just because they happen to use Python.

> >No. The GPL allows anyone to use the software, for commercial or
> >non-commercial purposes. However, if they distribute the software,
> >they must include all source code, including all source code they
> >write which is linked to the software.
> >
> I don't understand this. What is "the software"? As far as i can tell,
> if the software is distributed in binary format (say as a DLL on
> Windoze boxes) then it can be distributed freely with no conditions.
> I've written an extension to a vehicle tracking product that we
> produce that offers a scripting interface. I'm not sure if anyone will
> use this, but i certainly can't distribute it if i have to distribute
> the Python source. Added to which, i don't want to distribute my
> source (except to selected folk) as i don't need the support grief.

If you link against a GPLed product (even if it's done dynamically!),
the whole construction (your product + the GPLed one) automatically
fall under the GPL. This means that you can still sell and distribute
your product, but only if you include the full source code of
the GPLed product
*plus* your product.

The LGPL is a little different: it allows you to link against the
LGPLed product without the need to ship your source code. You still
have to include the source code of the LGPLed product you're linking
against though (including any changes that you have made to it).

If you are using Python extensions written by different authors,
be sure to check their license statement. In case you have any
doubts get in touch with them before using their code. Most
extensions are under very similar licenses as Python itself,
but some a GPLed and other LGPLed. Also, some are not valid for
commercial use meaning that you'll have to negotiate a special
license with the author to be able to use in your code. This
usually involves paying a license fee.

Hope this clarifies things a little. More infos on GPL and LGPL
should be available on www.gnu.org. If you are still unsure what
is legal and was is not, go on the safe side and contact your
lawyer to get things straight.

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Y2000: 144 days left
Business: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
Licenses... [ In reply to ]
In article <37AE9B42.4DF40758@lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
<mal@lemburg.com> writes
...
>If you link against a GPLed product (even if it's done dynamically!),
>the whole construction (your product + the GPLed one) automatically
>fall under the GPL. This means that you can still sell and distribute
>your product, but only if you include the full source code of
>the GPLed product
>*plus* your product.
>
Oh dear; I wrote this extension called dll for Tcl that allows tcl code
to link to arbitrary dll's. The source code for the extension is
available. Must I distribute source for all known GPL'd products which
can be linked to tcl using this extension. As it happens this thing is
mostly used by win32ers, but it has run under Linux.
>The LGPL is a little different: it allows you to link against the
>LGPLed product without the need to ship your source code. You still
>have to include the source code of the LGPLed product you're linking
>against though (including any changes that you have made to it).
>
>If you are using Python extensions written by different authors,
>be sure to check their license statement. In case you have any
>doubts get in touch with them before using their code. Most
>extensions are under very similar licenses as Python itself,
>but some a GPLed and other LGPLed. Also, some are not valid for
>commercial use meaning that you'll have to negotiate a special
>license with the author to be able to use in your code. This
>usually involves paying a license fee.
>
>Hope this clarifies things a little. More infos on GPL and LGPL
>should be available on www.gnu.org. If you are still unsure what
>is legal and was is not, go on the safe side and contact your
>lawyer to get things straight.
>

--
Robin Becker
Licenses... [ In reply to ]
In article <SpY1dCA7Ctr3EwsH@jessikat.demon.co.uk>,
Robin Becker <robin@jessikat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37AE9B42.4DF40758@lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
><mal@lemburg.com> writes
>...
>>If you link against a GPLed product (even if it's done dynamically!),
>>the whole construction (your product + the GPLed one) automatically
>>fall under the GPL. This means that you can still sell and distribute
>>your product, but only if you include the full source code of
>>the GPLed product
>>*plus* your product.
>
>Oh dear; I wrote this extension called dll for Tcl that allows tcl code
>to link to arbitrary dll's. The source code for the extension is
>available. Must I distribute source for all known GPL'd products which
>can be linked to tcl using this extension. As it happens this thing is
>mostly used by win32ers, but it has run under Linux.

IANAL, but I believe that it's only distribution of a package that
triggers these clauses. Thus, as long as you only distribute your own
code, you are only responsible for your license plus the licenses of
whatever packages you *need* in order for your package to be used; you
are not responsible for downstream uses of your package.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)

Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 (if you want to know, do some research)
Licenses... [ In reply to ]
Robin Becker wrote:
>
> In article <37AE9B42.4DF40758@lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
> <mal@lemburg.com> writes
> ...
> >If you link against a GPLed product (even if it's done dynamically!),
> >the whole construction (your product + the GPLed one) automatically
> >fall under the GPL. This means that you can still sell and distribute
> >your product, but only if you include the full source code of
> >the GPLed product
> >*plus* your product.
> >
> Oh dear; I wrote this extension called dll for Tcl that allows tcl code
> to link to arbitrary dll's. The source code for the extension is
> available. Must I distribute source for all known GPL'd products which
> can be linked to tcl using this extension. As it happens this thing is
> mostly used by win32ers, but it has run under Linux.

If TCL were under GPL then you'd have to ship both TCL and
your extension under GPL. But you're lucky: TCL is shipped under
a more liberal license, so you can distribute your code in any
form you like with or without TCL, as binary or source.

Note that I just posted this because more and more GPLed extensions
for Python are popping up -- if you want to include these in a
product, you'll have to take some care to follow the extension's
license. Otherwise, including the extension's code would be
simply illegal. In most cases, the author will probably also
distribute his/her code under a different (payed) license. In some
cases (like the GNU readline module, for which Python includes
an extension), the authors will probably not... e.g. shipping
Python with linked in readline support (as DLL or statically)
causes that Python interpreter to fall under GPL and with it,
all extensions linked to it. The Python code run by the interpreter
is not forced under GPL (otherwise all gcc compiled software
would turn GPLed...).

> >The LGPL is a little different: it allows you to link against the
> >LGPLed product without the need to ship your source code. You still
> >have to include the source code of the LGPLed product you're linking
> >against though (including any changes that you have made to it).
> >
> >If you are using Python extensions written by different authors,
> >be sure to check their license statement. In case you have any
> >doubts get in touch with them before using their code. Most
> >extensions are under very similar licenses as Python itself,
> >but some a GPLed and other LGPLed. Also, some are not valid for
> >commercial use meaning that you'll have to negotiate a special
> >license with the author to be able to use in your code. This
> >usually involves paying a license fee.
> >
> >Hope this clarifies things a little. More infos on GPL and LGPL
> >should be available on www.gnu.org. If you are still unsure what
> >is legal and was is not, go on the safe side and contact your
> >lawyer to get things straight.

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Y2000: 144 days left
Business: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
Licenses... [ In reply to ]
In message <37AF12D3.71240BA7@lemburg.com>, M.-A. Lemburg
<mal@lemburg.com> writes
>Robin Becker wrote:
...
>
>If TCL were under GPL then you'd have to ship both TCL and
>your extension under GPL. But you're lucky: TCL is shipped under
>a more liberal license, so you can distribute your code in any
>form you like with or without TCL, as binary or source.
>
>Note that I just posted this because more and more GPLed extensions
>for Python are popping up -- if you want to include these in a
>product, you'll have to take some care to follow the extension's
>license. Otherwise, including the extension's code would be
>simply illegal. In most cases, the author will probably also
>distribute his/her code under a different (payed) license. In some
>cases (like the GNU readline module, for which Python includes
>an extension), the authors will probably not... e.g. shipping
>Python with linked in readline support (as DLL or statically)
>causes that Python interpreter to fall under GPL and with it,
>all extensions linked to it. The Python code run by the interpreter
>is not forced under GPL (otherwise all gcc compiled software
>would turn GPLed...).
...
my point was that since my extension can be used to link tcl to these
GPL'd dlls it might dynamically compromise the GPL status. Suppose that
python could be shipped with lazy links to readline would the potential
link matter?
--
Robin Becker