[Python-3000] C API for ints and strings (original) (raw)

Nicholas Bastin nick.bastin at gmail.com
Tue Sep 11 10:38:21 CEST 2007

On 9/11/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:

> If python.org agreed to host the GMP source, that would suffice for > all people distributing python binaries (they could then just refer to > the GMP source download as a link).

It would not if they don't distribute the binary through download. If they put it on some media, or preinstalled on a computer (which happens a lot), offering the source for download through the internet is not good enough. Option 6d) only applies if the binaries are distributed "by offering access to copy from a designated place".

This is a good point.

> The FSF explicitly states that > this kind of agreement satisfies that requirement of the license.

Where do they do that?

In the GPL FAQ (<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>). Specifically:

Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site? The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".

> As for the user-replaceable shared library part, that's up for > considerable debate. It's unlikely that static linkage legally > creates a derivative work (that would be pretty unreasonable in > computer science terms), but it's never been tested in court, so > static linking would probably be out for distributors without a legal > department.

Perhaps. However, even if you link dynamically, you would still have to provide source code along with the binary.

No one is disputing that, just saying that the terms could be made less onerous for subsequent distributors of python by securing a written guarantee from python.org that python.org would continue to distribute the source code on the internet.

Of course, as several people have now pointed out, non-internet distribution would still have to ship the source code on their own, since the FAQ also prefers that source distribution be done by the same method as binary distribution. However, that being said, I don't see it as particularly onerous to add a small source distribution to a CD, since there's only a marginal increase in effective cost.

All of this being said, GMP has been shot down for plenty of good technical reasons, which is really the question that was asked in the first place. This legal discussion is bordering on the sublime at this point, given that no one is actually suggesting that we bind Python to any LGPL software (nor, by the way, was that actually ever suggested - the question was asked of what the community thought of a particular piece of software, and an idea in general, and instead of answering that question, most decided to explain what they thought of a particular license, ignoring the technical questions entirely).

-- Nick

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list