"W. Borgert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ciao, > > my understanding of the GPL is, that one can use GPLed > scripting language modules, such as python2.3-psycopg, in a > non-GPL, proprietory application, right? (As long as I give > away the module itself and any changes I might have done > under the GPL, of course.) Or do I have to use > python2.3-pgsql (BSD licensed) for that totally non-free > stuff?
If you are releasing a combined work which contains GPL'd code, the entire work is derivative of each component, and must comply with the license of that component. So yes, if you're shipping a bundle of your software and psycopg, you have to offer the source for your software as well. The fact that it uses python's import instead of C's #include has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, if you rely on psycopg being a normal part of the OS, and do not ship it yourself, then you do not have to ship the source for your program: : However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not : include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or : binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) : of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that : component itself accompanies the executable. But I advise you to consult a lawyer. If you're to be distributing proprietary software, consider it a cost of doing business. -Brian > Saluti, > -- > W. Borgert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/ -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
