On 9/8/07, Nicholas Bastin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/8/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would anyone be opposed to rehosting PyLong on top of GMP? > > > > I would be opposed. It's LGPL'ed, so you would have to ship GMP sources > > with any Python binary that you distribute. > > The LGPL has no requirement that you convey source for unmodified > libraries. Linkage does not imply modification.
Nevertheless I think it would be a bad idea to make it the default long implementation. There are bound to be *some* licensing issues with the LGPL (even if it's just more FUD we'd have to fight) and it'd be one more dependency. I believe there are already Python bindings for GMP somewhere, so it's not like there is no way to use if if you absolutely have to. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
