Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > You also need to ask about the cost of defending against a lawsuit by > the FSF, which is both the copyright holder of the library and the > primary advocate of the interpretation that a work which is intended > to be linked with another work is a derivative. I think the FSF > pretty much would have to fight any claims that contest its > interpretation of the concept of "derived work", because any > interpretation that requires a direct source-to-source copy will make > the GPL irrelevant.
So would you just like to see the readline module to be removed from the Python distribution? I personally don't, because I don't believe that the status quo conflicts with FSF's interpretation of the GPL, atleast not wrt. to anything the PSF does (i.e. source and Windows distribution). Also, I firmly believe that the FSF would *not* sue the PSF, but instead first ask that the status is corrected. Notice that the LGPL 2.1 somewhat elaborates on what the FSF considers "derived" wrt. linking: # When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a # shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a # combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary # General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the # entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. So it is the act of linking (and probably to some extent, the act of compiling) that creates the derivative work. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
