Hi Luke, Your blog post nails the problem. The GPL wasn't written with dynamic languages in mind and "linking" is a big question mark. As far as I know, it has never been tested in court, and we won't be sure of anything until it is.
Of course I could be wrong… I'm just repeating what I've heard from others whom I trust. In fact I would just like to skip this debate entirely and the easiest way to do that is to avoid the GPL :) That said, in my experience, people releasing Python libraries under the GPL fall in two categories: - people unfamiliar with licensing trying to do the right thing (I've done that before!), - people who don't want their code to be used in non-GPL apps (for whatever reason). In general, the first category doesn't object to switching to LGPL, which is recognized as safe for our purposes (as far as I know). It's hard to have a rational discussion with the second category because they tend to go on a FSF jihad as soon as you try discussing licensing with them ;) Asking to change the license to LGPL is a good first step for libraries where LGPL is obviously more suitable than GPL. If the author argues that GPL is more suitable, that tells us about his motivations, and we can make a decision to use or not use the code. -- Aymeric. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
