On Apr 21, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Alex Martelli wrote: > On 4/21/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >>> GMP is covered by LGPL, so must any such derivative work >> >> But the wrapper is just using GMP as a library, so >> it shouldn't be infected with LGPLness, should it? > > If a lawyer for the PSF can confidently assert that gmpy is not a > derivative work of GMP, I'll have no problem changing gmpy's > licensing. But I won't make such a call myself: for example, gmpy.c > #include's gmp.h and uses (==expands) some of the C macros there > defined -- doesn't that make gmpy.o a derived work of gmp.h? > > I'm quite confident that the concept of "derived work" would not apply > if gmpy.so only accessed a gmp.so (or other kinds of dynamic > libraries), but I fear the connection is stronger than that, so, > prudently, I'm assuming the "derived work" status until further > notice.
Well we already wrap readline, would this really be any worse? Readline is GPL. -bob _______________________________________________ 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
