Diez B. Roggisch wrote: > Ben Finney schrieb: > >>>> Ben Finney wrote: > >>>>> So long as you're not distributing some or all of Python itself, > >>>>> or a derivative work, the license for Python has no legal effect > >>>>> on what license you choose for your own work. > > [SNIP] > > My claim (and IANAL) is that it doesn't matter *what* license Python > > is distributed under; unless you do something with Python that is a > > right of the copyright holder, such as distributing part or all of > > Python, the copyright license terms of Python have no legal effect on > > what license you choose for your own work. > > IANAL - having said that: > > Not true for the GPL.
[Re: the hypothetical situation where Python were GPL'd] It doesn't matter what the GPL says, if your work is not a derivative work of Python then you have no obligation to follow _any_ terms in Python's license to distribute your own work. The GPL could make all the claims it wants[1], it doesn't matter since you aren't legally required to follow any of them for your own (non-derived) work. In particular, if your program ran on PyPy or Jython, it'd be pretty much impossible to argue that it's a derivative work of CPython. Now, if Jython/PyPy both required CPython libraries (which your code used) then there could be a case that your code is derivative of those libraries and bound by their license terms--it's not obvious that argument would fly, but it's also not obvious it wouldn't. [1] in reality the GPL recognizes this--see clause 5 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
