Note that your interpretation would allow Python to distribute
arbitrarily licensed libraries and GPL programs to link with them.
That is surely not the intent of the authors of the GPL, and in the
past, the FSF has explicitly restricted the interpretation of system
library.
Note that it is
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote:
Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
Any libraries commonly avaliable with a CPython instalation can be
considered as system libraries for GPL purposes - and so
this would fall in the system library exception as
Martin v. Löwis writes:
Note that it is ultimately up to a court to interpret these words of the
GPL, not to the FSF lawyer.
True, and in the case of a non-FSF product, any ambiguities would be
resolved first by determining the intent of the copyright owner,
second (perhaps even overriding
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:20:01 -0500
James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net wrote:
It's well known that OpenSSL is incompatible with the GPL. [1] Python (from
2.6) is *always* linked against openssl, instead of waiting for you to
import ssl.
Doesn't this mean it's now impossible (rather, a license
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 00:32, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Also, with the system Python 2.6 shipped on a Mandriva distribution:
$ ldd /usr/bin/python
linux-vdso.so.1 = (0x7fff8456d000)
libpython2.6.so.1.0 = /usr/lib64/libpython2.6.so.1.0
(0x7f1a0b1e2000)
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:20 PM, James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net wrote:
It's well known that OpenSSL is incompatible with the GPL. [1] Python (from
2.6) is *always* linked against openssl, instead of waiting for you to
import ssl.
Doesn't this mean it's now impossible (rather, a license
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 18:20 -0500, James Y Knight wrote:
It's well known that OpenSSL is incompatible with the GPL. [1] Python (from
2.6) is *always* linked against openssl, instead of waiting for you to
import ssl.
Doesn't this mean it's now impossible (rather, a license violation) to
Am 09.03.11 18:20, schrieb James Y Knight:
[1] Python (from 2.6) is *always* linked against openssl
Others have already pointed that out, but let me stress it again:
this statement is false. It is as possible and easy to build Python
without OpenSSL as it always was.
instead of waiting for
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Westley Martínez aniko...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 18:20 -0500, James Y Knight wrote:
It's well known that OpenSSL is incompatible with the GPL. [1] Python (from
2.6) is *always* linked against openssl, instead of waiting for you to
import ssl.
Joao S. O. Bueno writes:
Any libraries commonly avaliable with a CPython instalation can be
considered as system libraries for GPL purposes - and so
this would fall in the system library exception as described by the FAQ:
Note that your interpretation would allow Python to distribute
On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
It seems introduced by the patch debian/patches/setup-modules-ssl.diff
with description # DP: Modules/Setup.dist: patch to build _hashlib
and _ssl extensions statically
Indeed you're right -- out of the box, python still builds _ssl.so as a
Westley Martínez writes:
Is it legal to distribute GPL programs that use the Win32 API?
Yes. Their use of the Win32 API falls under the essential system
library clause. The criterion for essential is that normal, basic
use of the system would fail without the library. Windows won't boot
James Y Knight, 10.03.2011 06:52:
But you're also left with not being able to 'import hashlib'. While python has
fallback code, those modules (_md5, _sha, _sha256, _sha512) aren't built if
openssl was found at build time. So you can't just select at runtime that you
didn't want to use
13 matches
Mail list logo
