Jesse Noller <jnoller <at> gmail.com> writes: > It's less about keeping "me" happy: I'm fine with a model that if GPG exists, > it's used, silently (not linked against in any way though in core Python - > license incompatible).
Right, but it may be OK for pip (or other Python tool with a non-GPL-compatible license) to bundle a version for use on Windows (just two files - gpg.exe and iconv.dll). The GPL FAQ has a couple of entries which may be relevant to whether unmodified GPL binaries can be bundled with software which is not compatible with the GPL: 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCompatInstaller 2. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation It would seem that all that needs to be done is to provide a link whereby the source corresponding to the shipped binary is available to a user of the binary (i.e. any user of pip or a similar tool). Certainly, the GPL FAQ seems to say that connecting to gpg via fork/exec and communicating with it via pipes does not constitute a combined or derivative work. Might it be worth asking a PSF lawyer to see what they think? If the couple of GnuPG files can be bundled, it removes a hurdle from the usability point of view: users don't need to install anything besides pip. Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
