(original) (raw)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 01:37, <skip@pobox.com> wrote:
Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to GMP) would solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that build of Python would still be held by the LGPL -- such as shipping any sources that they embed that Python into.
Martin> On Windows, the GMP binaries would be incorporated into
Benjamin> The main objection is that GMP is licensed under LGPL which I
Benjamin> believe conflicts with Python's very open license.
>> If GMP itself isn't included with Python how can there be a licensing
>> issue?
Martin> pythonxy.dll. This would force anybody providing a copy of
Martin> pythonxy.dll to also provide the sources of GMP.
As I understand it the proposal was to allow people to substitute GMP for
Python's long implementation. Just deliver binaries with the Python long
version if you don't want to distribute the GMP source. OTOH, it should be
no big deal to drop a zip archive of the GMP sources which correspond to the
code bound into the DLL. OTOOH, doesn't Windows support dynamic linking?
Can't pythonxy.dll dynamically link to a gmpMN.dll?
Neither of those (shipping sources or dynamically linking to GMP) would solve the LGPL issue. People who distribute that build of Python would still be held by the LGPL -- such as shipping any sources that they embed that Python into.
--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!