Re: Bug#82116: README.why-python2 does not accurately describe licensing issues
On Jan 13, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> thanks for the feedback!
You're welcome :)
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:34:13PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > I would add at least a pointer to the Python community's response to
> > this issue,
>
> Which was like what ?
>
> Can _you_ give _me_ a pointer to that response ? The only kind of response I
> noticed was much /.-like noise a la 'RMS is a moron, let's ignore him.',
> technical discussions on whether that clause would also apply in Germany, or
> just silence.
>
> I really don't know what the Python community thinks about this issue. I
> think the community doesn't know either ;-/.
>
> What I do know is that people at Digital Creations are aware of the fact
> that there are mixed emotions about that license, and that Guido himself is
> very much aware of that, too.
I can't find any coherent community response either; I see lots of
lawyers yelling past one another, but the community doesn't care.
> It sounds like you think that that license is compatible with the GPL. Would
> you agree with my conclusion that we should follow the wish of the FSF and
> not mix their GPL code with Python 2 code ? I'm really open to other
> opinions here, since I'm no lawyer.
I really don't know what to think. I think you can plausibly argue
that the GPL is intended to be interpreted under the laws of the state
of Massachussetts. The question is whether specifying how to
interpret the terms of another license affects how the GPL would be
interpreted, no? And more importantly, does it make any difference?
i.e. if I have GPLed code imported by a Py2L'ed program, and there is
some licensing dispute, does the fact the Py2L'ed program's licenses
will be interpreted under California and/or Virginia law make the GPL
have to be interpreted under those laws too? My common sense says no,
but common sense != the law.
I don't know what all of this means. Erring on the side of caution,
we probably should not link Python2 stuff against GPLed stuff, not
because the FSF says it's bad voodoo, but because the licensing issues
are unclear. My only concern is that we (as a project) probably
should rely on our own legal counsel in making a final decision,
rather than accepting one side's lawyers' viewpoints on faith.
To be fair, the KDE licensing issue was (surprisingly) much more
clear-cut. I really don't know if this jurisdiction thing passes the
laugh test...
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Computer Systems Manager (Physics & Astronomy, 125 Lewis, 662-915-5765)
Instructor, POL 101 (Political Science, 208 Deupree, 662-915-5949)
Reply to: