Re: libreadline
* Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> [020504 19:30]:
> I believe this is only an issue if we also ship python programs that
> use both modules. It may be the case that we do; but simply having both
> python modules available on the system is not a license conflict, and
> end-users are even allowed to write programs using both modules; they
> just can't be distributed with Debian without some resolution to the
> above issue.
>
> If we don't ship any python programs that depend on both SSL socket
> support and readline support, I believe providing a non-SSL-enabled
> socket module as the preferred socket module will satisfy the license
> requirements. If we have programs that do need both SSL and readline,
> then something needs to be changed -- either readline must be replaced
> with editline, or OpenSSL must be replaced with gnutls.
Well, if you do this:
freefly:46> python2.1
Python 2.1.3 (#1, Apr 20 2002, 10:14:34)
[GCC 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)] on linux2
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import socket
then both readline and OpenSSL are linked into the Python interpreter.
Now the question seems to be if distributing a package that allows this
is in violation of the GPL.
If you run a Python script (non-interactively), then readline is not
used.
Gregor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: