On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:47:20AM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > i've read the FSF writings about GPL and interpreters multiple times and > still i don't understand the exact meaning (or even what they would like > to enforce). _my_ interpretation is that as long as you don't directly > link with psycopg and only use the python api you're safe. you can write > and distribute a proprietary python program as long as python and any C > module calling psycopg are GPL compatible. you can even have proprietary > C module in python as long as they don't call psycopg code (by "linking" > i mean linking, not just coexisting in the same address space :)
OK, if this interpretation holds, I'll go on in using psycopg. Note: RMS explicitly does not allow any GNU Emacs modes that are not GPLed. GNU Emacs modes are written in elisp, so the situation might be comparable. Confusion? Cheers, -- W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
