On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Derek Broughton <[email protected]> wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > >> If you listen to random developers, sure. I have seen so many developers >> make so many bogus claims about licensing that I do not put any trust in >> blog posts like that. Might I suggest that you use arguments from people >> who have a real legal knowledge instead? Places like groklaw, >> gpl-violations.org, the various FSF and related organisations, etc. > > I so hate licensing arguments, but I still tend to agree with Mikko. I see > no evidence that the GPL is enforceable at the level of an "import". If you > have examples, please tell us. Additionally, while knowing the FSF's stance > is important - as it can tell you what they _consider_ actionable - any > statement they make about enforceability of the GPL is clearly self-serving > and, without legal precedents, is about as much use as listening to random > developers.
The Plone Foundation's long-standing official policy on this can be found at: http://plone.org/foundation/copyrights/license-faq Short version: we believe that doing a Python importing from GPL code is sufficient to create a derived work that is subject to the GPL. (NB: I'm not currently on the Foundation board, and I hate licensing arguments, so arguing with me about this is pointless. If you'd like to argue with the Foundation about it, then they will likely refer you to Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center, who loves a good argument. ;-) :jon _______________________________________________ Product-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/product-developers
