Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
"/.../ If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."
</F>
Yes, that is what the FSF GPL FAQ says. However, the GPL itself says:
"[Section 0] Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
There is not, AFAICS, any formal definition of what is meant by "modification" in the GPL.
Section 2.b of the GPL says:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
and Section 2 goes on to say:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought (note the scope of the advice was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or combined with non-GPLed code, and that the GPLed and non-GPLed code are distributed or otherwise made available in packages which are very clearly separate works, and that any interaction between the two is restricted to runtime, then the GPL does not require that non-GPLed code to be distributed under the GPL.
It is arguable whether that opinion is at odds with the sentiments expressed in the FSF GPL FAQ - it depends whether importing two python modules into the same namespace is considered equivalent to, as the FAQ says, "run linked together in a shared address space", but ultimately, it is what the GPL license text says, not what the FSF FAQ says, which matters.
Note that I am not in favour of or advocating any attempt to circumvent or undermine the GPL. I just think it is important to be guided by what software licenses actually say, rather than by what the authors of the licenses wished they had said in retrospect.
Tim C
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
