[Python-Dev] Optionally using GMP to implement long if available (original) (raw)

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Tue Nov 4 12:31:19 CET 2008

Thomas Wouters writes:

Ah, but not true according to who? [...]

It is certainly the case that such a combination is enough to scare off corporate lawyers who aren't sure either (most of them, I bet) and would advise against using that build of Python because of the LGPL components.

I don't think this is a matter of "according to whom", except where you have a timid client and a FUD-ful lawyer, which is a plausible case, I admit. Copyright law is very literal about this kind of thing, and does not distinguish between bytes that represent a symbolic name for a function, and bytes that represent the address of the function. If the LGPL licenses symbolic references as long as the function object code is not copied into your executable, then numerical addresses are also OK as long as the function object code is not copied into the executable you distribute.

I agree the language used in the LGPL is unfortunately imprecise. But the FSF's intent and understanding is quite clear about the issues you raise. See their License FAQ and David Turner's article about Java vs. the LGPL:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Prelinking http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLv3ContributorVersion http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.html

I see nothing anywhere to indicate that the FSF thinks that the LGPL should work differently in a practical sense on Windows than it does on GNU/Linux, and while Turner's article refers to language environments rather than OSes, it's pretty clear that the assertion that "the LGPL just works as intended and expected" applies to OS environments too.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list