[Stephen J. Turnbull] > ... > Aladdin took a position similar to Martin's, and only yanked the > offending Makefile stanza when the FSF called them and said "we're > ready to go to court; are you?"
> ... > It's not theoretical; it's almost identical to the Aladdin case. > Legally the PSF is, if anything, in a weaker position than Aladdin > (which did not distribute the module that interfaced to libreadline in > Ghostscript, but merely a makefile stanza that used it if it were > found). I'm not making myself clear. The FSF (like most organizations, including the PSF) has agendas that are more aptly described as political than as legal -- legalities are more of a club to try to force what they want. If the FSF merely _says_ they want to make it difficult, or even impossible, to link Python and/or Python apps with GNU readline, that's fine by me, and they don't have to make up creative license readings or threats to get that. I'm happy to accede to their wishes in the matter regardless of what the license says, or is claimed to say. OTOH, I have no reason to _presume_ that this is their hoped-for outcome wrt Python, neither to presume that the politics shaping their tussle with Aladdin are relevant to the PSF. "The law" is rarely applied uniformly, in large part because it usually is means rather than end. Python is a high-profile project that hasn't been hiding its readline module, and if I presume anything here it's that the FSF would have complained by now if they really didn't want this. In the meantime, I'm satisfied that the people involved with Python's readline module acted on good-faith readings of the licenses involved. If someone cares enough to rip it out, and/or to supply an alternative, fine by me too (but it won't _be_ me). _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
