This is the mail archive of the libffi-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the libffi project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Python-Dev] (libffi) Re: Copyright issue


Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> That's no different. If you burn a CD containing a copy of the GCC and a
> copy of a commercial software you are not violating any license. If you
> distribute an .ISO file containing a copy of the GCC and a copy of a
> commercial software, you are not violating any license. If you distribute a
> .zip file containing a copy of GCC and a copy of a commercial software, you
> are not violating any license.

You misunderstand the GPL. Section 2b) is pretty clear that any
application that contains GPL-licensed code must be, itself, distributed
under the terms ofthe GPL

    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.

It further elaborates (in 2, below c) that you could distribute
"identifiable sections of [your] work [which] are not derived from the
Program" separately, as long as you omit the Program. But if you
distribute them as a whole, the whole must be licensed under the GPL.

> There is an important difference between aggreggation of different programs,
> and static/dynamic linking of parts.

There is an exception for "mere aggregation":

# In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
# with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
# a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
# the scope of this License.

However, inclusion of aclocal.m4 isn't "mere aggregation [...] on
a volume of storage". aclocal.m4 is an essential part of the software
as a whole, so 2b) applies.

> Also, do not understimate previous history. There are zillions of programs
> out there using Autconf and *not* being GPL.

Yes, and SCO is (rightly, IMO) complaining that zillions of open source
people do not honor IP properly. That doesn't mean Python should follow.
Instead, it means we need a build process for libffi which is
independent of autoconf (or convince the authors of aclocal.m4 to
relicense it, but that is likely futile).

As a matter of fact, Python itself uses autoconf, but without
aclocal.m4. autoconf generates configure for us, but configure is
not GPL-licensed, even though it is generated through autoconf:

# Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.

Regards,
Martin


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]