Il giorno 30/nov/2011, alle ore 12:46, Hywel Richards ha scritto: > Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> I decided the current PyInstaller licensing structure back in 2006, and I >> can tell you with confidence that my goal was not to impose any restriction >> on the final executable, not even the mandatory display of attribution >> and/or copyright messages. > > But because bits of python are effectively included in the pyinstalled > package, do you think that Section s 2 and 3 of the PSF License > (http://docs.python.org/license.html) require that the PSF License/Copyright > is reproduced with the pyinstalled package? (over and above running > "strings" on the files in the package, of course).
I don't think that a PyInstaller-built package can be defined a Python-derived work just because it bundles (and links to) the Python dynamic library. PSF's goal is to retain the copyrights on Python forks, so to speak. Otherwise, it could be inferred that any software written in Python "links to" the Python library as in it's the only way to make it work. Please notice that most of the FLOSS licenses are structured in a way that anybody can enforce them over the authors of the programs that violate them, irrespective of the willing/awareness of the third party library/software involved. That is, Mr. Black could sue you because your software violates the PyInstaller license, even if we (PyInstaller authors) are not aware of this happening, nor we believe that the case has any merit. If you need a definitive answer, the only way is going through a legal counsel. -- Giovanni Bajo :: [email protected] Develer S.r.l. :: http://www.develer.com My Blog: http://giovanni.bajo.it
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
