[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: use of Python bindings to GPL library from within non-GPL Python toolkit

"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> writes:

> If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN*
> mix it with both GPL and your own software.
> But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must
> distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL

Not quite: the GPL says only that you may not impose *additional*
restrictions beyond those in the GPL. There are a number of non-GPL
licenses that, because their restrictions are a subset of those in the
GPL, are thus compatible with the GPL.

I believe the original poster spoke of an "MIT-style" license; this
term could refer to any of a number of different licenses, so I'll
assume they mean instead terms equivalent to the Expat license.

The terms of the Expat license is one example of a license that is not
GPL but is GPL-compatible. A work derived both from works licensed GPL
and Expat can be redistributed under the GPL.

> but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you
> can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't
> distribute.

If that were true, then it would indeed make the work
non-redistributable. If both licenses *can* be satisfied (as in the
case of GPL and Expat, by redistributing under the terms of the GPL),
then that would be okay.

 \       “About four years ago, I was — no, it was yesterday.” —Steven |
  `\                                                            Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: