Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
On 12/12/2014 11:44 PM, Ángel González wrote:
> Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>> Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me.
>>
>> I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with
>> PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary:
>>
>> If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible
>> license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code
>> (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications?
>> Am I wrong on any of the following statements
>>
>> - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL
>> - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license)
>>
>> - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens,
>> so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then
>> and what needs to be enforced?
>>
>> - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with
>> modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library
>>
>> - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds
>> dubious)
>>
>> - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes
>> distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide
>> modified sources)
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback
>>
>> [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html
> If the distributor were a distro like Debian IMHO:
> - package X can be licensed under Expat
> - package Y is licensed under GPL (I would probably add a warning on
the description)
>
> As package X already meets GPL requeriments that's not really a problem.
>
> However, let's call X' to X + GPL-incompatible changes.
>
> Then X' and Y couldn't be used together.
>From what I've read (and recall), if both X and Y are independent of
each other (X can function without Y, and Y can be used without X), then
it is okay for X to be GPL-incompatible -- thus allowing one to develop
GPL plug-ins to closed-source programs.
However, it appears that the FSF has updated their stance on this
issue[1]. You cane substitute "GPL-incompatible" for "non-free" without
changing the result, I believe.
Of course, Debian differs from FSF on many points, but this supports
what Ángel has said.
[1]:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ_Update#Can_I_apply_the_GPL_when_writing_a_plug-in_for_a_non-free_program.3F
--
Jonathan Paugh
jpaugh@gmx.us
Reply to: