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

["Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v dot loewis dot de>]

Bill Northcott wrote:
> The build tools: m4 scripts, the configure shell script and the 
> Makefiles all contain GPL code and are under GPL.
> 
> However, none of this ends up in the 'finished program' which is the 
> executable versions of Python and its associated libraries.  The  build
> tools are just tools not part of the program.  The program is  not
> 'derived' from the build tools.

Again: What matters is what ends up in the source distribution,
http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/Python-2.4.tgz

The source distribution would contain aclocal.m4; it would not
contain the autoconf/autoheader tools themselves.

The configure script is *NOT* under GPL, it explicitly says

# 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.

Likewise, the Makefile.in is not under GPL, either: Makefile.in says

# Copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
# 2003, 2004  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This Makefile.in is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
# with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

> Of course the computer on which I wrote the book has an operating 
> system which is copyright.  The word processing software I used to do 
> the writing is also copyright.  However none of either program ends  up
> in my novel.  So the novel is not derived from them, and their 
> copyright holders have no rights over the novel.

See, and this is precisely the difference. The word processor doesn't
end up in the distributed book. However, aclocal.m4 ends up in the
source distribution.

> I can happily package appropriately licensed copies of the word 
> processing software with the finished book.

Right: "appropriately licensed". Whether you *actually* can do this
depends on the license of the word processor. For example, if the
license says "not for resale", you cannot do this - even if you
are, yourself, licensed to use the copy you got.

So do I have permission to distribute copies of aclocal.m4? Yes,
the GPL allows this. Does it put additional obligations in doing
so? Yes, it does:

    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.

Is (a future) Python-2.5.tgz "work that I distribute or publish"?
Yes, it is.

Does it "in whole or in part contain" "the Program or any part thereof"?
Yes, it does.

So I must "cause" Python-2.5.tgz "to be licensed as  whole at
no charge to all third parties under the terms of" the GPL.

> A Python binary is no more derived from the autotools than the book  is
> derived from the word processing software.

No, the Python binary isn't. The Python source is.

Regards,
Martin