> If python.org agreed to host the GMP source, that would suffice for > all people distributing python binaries (they could then just refer to > the GMP source download as a link).
It would not if they don't distribute the binary through download. If they put it on some media, or preinstalled on a computer (which happens a lot), offering the source for download through the internet is not good enough. Option 6d) only applies if the binaries are distributed "by offering access to copy from a designated place". > The FSF explicitly states that > this kind of agreement satisfies that requirement of the license. Where do they do that? > As for the user-replaceable shared library part, that's up for > considerable debate. It's unlikely that static linkage legally > creates a derivative work (that would be pretty unreasonable in > computer science terms), but it's never been tested in court, so > static linking would probably be out for distributors without a legal > department. Perhaps. However, even if you link dynamically, you would *still* have to provide source code along with the binary. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
