Re: GPL and scripting languages (here: python2.3-psycopg)
"W. Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:47:20AM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
>> i've read the FSF writings about GPL and interpreters multiple times and
>> still i don't understand the exact meaning (or even what they would like
>> to enforce). _my_ interpretation is that as long as you don't directly
>> link with psycopg and only use the python api you're safe. you can write
>> and distribute a proprietary python program as long as python and any C
>> module calling psycopg are GPL compatible. you can even have proprietary
>> C module in python as long as they don't call psycopg code (by "linking"
>> i mean linking, not just coexisting in the same address space :)
>
> OK, if this interpretation holds, I'll go on in using
> psycopg. Note: RMS explicitly does not allow any GNU Emacs
> modes that are not GPLed. GNU Emacs modes are written in
> elisp, so the situation might be comparable. Confusion?
GNU Emacs is distributed under the GPL. elisp code links with the
interpreter: for example, gnus.el and Emacs together form a work, the
Gnus news-reader. But if Emacs is a normal part of the OS, I don't
see why there's a problem there -- you just distribute the elisp code
alone, and tell people to use the Emacs elisp interpreter which came
with their system.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: