On 1/30/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well done! Would you like to derive a Python patch from that?
Yup. I'll do.
On 1/30/06, Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's great! Would you like to integrate these changes into to ctypes
CVS repository yourself? I indend to do
Hye-Shik Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/30/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well done! Would you like to derive a Python patch from that?
Yup. I'll do.
On 1/30/06, Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's great! Would you like to integrate these changes into to
On 28/01/2006, at 8:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The compiler needs specific exemptions because parts of the GPLed
runtime libraries are included in all compiled code. No part of the
autotools ends up in the finished code. If it did, you would need m4
to run Python and you don't.
It
On 29/01/2006, at 5:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
the GPL;
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution. A
OTOH this (from python-sig-mac) is a worry if it is correct:
s Apparently the readline library in MacOSX isn't really
readline.
s It's a renamed libedit. Not having encountered this deception
s before, Python's build procedure doesn't know to test the
capability
s of
On 29/01/2006, at 5:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
the GPL;
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution. A
On 28/01/2006, at 8:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The compiler needs specific exemptions because parts of the GPLed
runtime libraries are included in all compiled code. No part of the
autotools ends up in the finished code. If it did, you would need m4
to run Python and you don't.
It
On 29/01/2006, at 7:00 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Again: What matters is what ends up in the source distribution,
http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/Python-2.4.tgz
No really that is wrong. What matters is what is in the Python
executables, but you don't want to know that. So I will bow
Bill Northcott wrote:
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution. A configure script is built up from lots
of code fragments out of the autoconf and automake M4 files, and would
clearly be covered by GPL.
No. As I just said in the other
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source distribution would contain aclocal.m4; it would not
contain the autoconf/autoheader tools themselves.
To a rather different point, do we need aclocal.m4 at all? This is
the log for aclocal.m4:
Michael Hudson wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
Regards,
Martin
On 1/28/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
the
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Hudson wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you
Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
I did some work to make ctypes+libffi compacter and liberal.
http://openlook.org/svnpublic/ctypes-compactffi/ (svn)
I removed sources/gcc and put sources/libffi copied from gcc 4.0.2.
And removed all automake-related build processes and integrated
them into setup.py.
Terry Reedy wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
Does this mean that
Hye-Shik Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/28/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would
Bill Northcott wrote:
Quite so, but using the autotools does NOT include any GPL code in the
resulting program.
Hmm. Please take a look at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ctypes/ctypes/source/gcc/libffi/aclocal.m4?rev=1.1.4.1
This file contains a large number of licensing
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
[I've added python-dev to cc:]
Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for building
(or maybe for regenerating the
Giovanni == Giovanni Bajo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Giovanni This would be a new interpretation of the license. The whole
Giovanni autotools chain is GPL and it is used on way too many
Giovanni programs which are not GPL. They're so many I won't even
Giovanni mention one. Anyway, IANAL, so if
On Jan 27, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
I guess I understood this already. The difference to the C
compiler is
that the compiler is not 'bundled' with Python, it is installed
separately.
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with
the GPL
licensed
Martin == Martin v Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Instead, it means we need a build process for libffi which is
Martin independent of autoconf (or convince the authors of aclocal.m4 to
Martin relicense it, but that is likely futile).
Martin As a matter of fact, Python itself uses
On 28/01/2006, at 10:41 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
You misunderstand the GPL. Section 2b) is pretty clear that any
application that contains GPL-licensed code must be, itself,
distributed
under the terms ofthe GPL
Quite so, but using the autotools does NOT include any GPL code in
the
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
should be no issues.
Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
the GPL; the status of the generated
[I've added python-dev to cc:]
Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for building
(or maybe for regenerating the configure scripts), or is it optional?
aclocal.m4 is required,
Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
[I've added python-dev to cc:]
Anthony Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for
Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for building
(or maybe for regenerating the configure scripts), or is it optional?
aclocal.m4 is required, but is only used as a build-time
Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
should be no issues.
[Anthony Green]
I guess I wasn't clear. aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build
libffi. Like your C compiler. Bundling it with the Python source
distribution
Thomas Heller wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
the GPL.
However, I still think it is possible to include libffi
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
That's no different. If you burn a CD containing a copy of the GCC and a
copy of a commercial software you are not violating any license. If you
distribute an .ISO file containing a copy of the GCC and a copy of a
commercial software, you are not violating any license. If
Thomas Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
should be no issues.
[Anthony Green]
I guess I wasn't clear. aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build
libffi. Like your C compiler.
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the
GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
the GPL.
This would be a new
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
This would be a new interpretation of the license. The whole autotools chain
is
GPL and it is used on way too many programs which are not GPL. They're so many
I won't even mention one. Anyway, IANAL, so if you're really concerned you can
mail the FSF and ask
32 matches
Mail list logo
