Martin v. Löwis <[email protected]> added the comment:
[Replying to msg106566]
> if you're already looking at issue6715, then I don't get why you're
> asking.. ;)
Can you please submit a contributor form?
> Martin: For LGPL (or even GPL for that matter, disregarding linking
> restrictions) libraries you don't have to distribute the sources of
> those libraries at all (they're already made available by others, so
> that would be quite overly redundant, uh?;). LGPL actually doesn't
> even care at all about the license of your software as long as you
> only dynamically link against it.
Of course you do. Quoting from the LGPL
"You may convey a Combined Work ... if you also do each of the following:
...
d) Do one of the following:
0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this
License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form
suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine
or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked
Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner
specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying
Corresponding Source.
1) [not applicable to Windows]
"
> I don't really get what the issue would be even if liblzma were still
> LGPL, it doesn't prohibit you from distributing a dynamically linked
> library along with python either if necessary (which of course would
> be of convenience on win32..)..
Of course I can distribute a copy of an lzma DLL. However, I would have to
provide ("convey") a copy of the source code of that DLL as well.
----------
nosy: +loewis
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6715>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
