|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Steve Holden
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Posts: 1255
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:
[Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
In the absence of other information I Cc'd gnu@gnu.org to ask their
opinion about the relationship between GPL'd Python modules and programs
that imported them
-------- Original Message --------
| Quote: | [steve@holdenweb.com - Mon Jan 31 15:49:28 2005]:
Scott Robinson wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 21:59:25 -0800, Paul Rubin
http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
John Hunter <jdhunter@ace.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:
The question is: does shipping a backend which imports a module that
links with GPL code make some or all of the library GPL.
Literally speaking, no, not automatically, any more than driving a car
makes you into a licensed driver if you weren't one already. But if
you weren't licensed, then you've broken the law by driving the car.
So your question should be: 1) is shipping that backend one of the
things you need the GPL to license you to legally do, and 2) if so,
does the GPL in fact give you that license?
If you're asking in terms of legal enforcement, the answer is 1) maybe
and 2) almost certainly not. I think it's better to ask in terms of
the GPL's spirit. I would say that it's not in the GPL's spirit and
that GPL die-hards would consider that use objectionable, though they
might make exceptions for specific cases (so it doesn't hurt to ask).
Some authors who use the GPL are less strict about how they interpret
it, so again, the friendly thing to do is ask the author.
* If a backend module somebackend does
import somelib
where somelib is a python wrapper of GPL code, is somebackend GPLd?
It's GPL'd if you GPL it. If you don't GPL it, then distributing it
it may be a GPL violation that could get you taken to court. I
believe the FSF's view is that it is fact a violation; however, the
courts have not yet established this. The law doesn't have a
black-and-white boundary. It's more like a fractal. The only way to
find out what a court will decide is to actually try a case there.
Rather than try to probe how closely you can dance around the
boundaries of the GPL, you might just ask the author of the GPL'd
library whether what you want to do is ok with him or her. If s/he
says no and you do it anyway, you're both inviting trouble over the
possible infringement, and also inviting people to try to use your
code in ways you don't like. Since the free software movement depends
on a spirit of cooperation, I think it's best to avoid trying to press
too hard against the boundaries of anyone's licenses.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
If you read the GPL, it claims everything it can (any "work" created
using GPLed "work"). My guess is that anything that calls the code in
a way not specifically allowed by the author is going to get you into
trouble. IANAL, but from what I can remember about earlier licensing
issues, any code specific for a GPLed library (especially "import")
will get you into to trouble. Having a non-free library with an
identical API and issuing
exec("import "+sys.argv[1])
where the user can supply sys.argv as the name of the gpl'ed library
will work (I think there is a free/non-free library out there that is
never run, but exists for exactly this condition).
Scott Robinson
I presume the appropriate way to answer this question is to ask the Gnu,
since under these circumstances the Python zen would advise "refuse the
temptation to guess". So I am Cc'ing gnu@gnu.org with a request for an
answer to the (apparently relatively simple) question:
If a Python program imports a module licensed under the GPL, in your
opinion does the Python program become a derivative work of the GPL'd
software?
|
Generally, yes.
--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
So, there we have it, not a legal opinion but at least what a GPL
compliance engineer thinks. I must add, I can't remember when I saw a
dafter title.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Rubin
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1197
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> writes:
| Quote: | In the absence of other information I Cc'd gnu@gnu.org to ask their
opinion about the relationship between GPL'd Python modules and
programs that imported them
|
In the OP's particular case, he got the agreement of the GPL'd
module's author, so it stopped being an issue for that particular
module. However the FSF takes the view that dynamic linking a GPL'd
module does count as making a derivative work, and I'm pretty sure
they have enforced this view (i.e. convinced someone who was doing it
that they better stop) in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Churches
*nix forums addict
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:42 am Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
Steve Holden <steve@holdenweb.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In the absence of other information I Cc'd gnu@gnu.org to ask their
opinion about the relationship between GPL'd Python modules and
programs that imported them
....
If a Python program imports a module licensed under the GPL, in your
opinion does the Python program become a derivative work of the GPL'd
software?
Generally, yes.
--
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
So, there we have it, not a legal opinion but at least what a GPL
compliance engineer thinks. I must add, I can't remember when I saw a
dafter title.
|
Definitely not a legal opinion, which are characterised by an explanation of the logic
and reasoning behind the opinion.
Perhaps you can ask the GPL Compliance Engineer how he responds to the following
facts:
0) Section 0 of the GPL states: "Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
1) In Australia and Europe at least, loading program code from disc into memory in
order to execute it is not considered as making an infringing copy under copyright law.
Thus it is drawing a very long bow indeed to describe importing a third-party GPLed
module at runtime as "copying" in these countries.
2) Importing a third-party GPLed Python module at runtime cannot be considered
distribution, nor can it be considered modification, since the source or object code for
that module is not being edited or modified.
Given these fatcs, under what possible interpretation (in Australia and Europe and
probably elsewhere) can the act of importing a GPLed Python module at runtime be
considered to fall under the scope of the GPL as set out in Section 0, quoted above?
See also this article, in which Lawrence Rosen, the attorney for OSI, admits that it is
impossible for anyone to properly interpret the application of various open source
licenses under the various national laws:
http://www.devx.com/opensource/Article/27171
I suspect that this issue applies equally to the FSF.
Tim C |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Rubin
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1197
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:54 am Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
Tim Churches <tchur@optushome.com.au> writes:
| Quote: | See also this article, in which Lawrence Rosen, the attorney for
OSI, admits that it is impossible for anyone to properly interpret
the application of various open source licenses under the various
national laws: http://www.devx.com/opensource/Article/27171
I suspect that this issue applies equally to the FSF.
|
Correct. Neither a GPL compliance engineer, the FSF's legal counsel,
an attorney for OSI, a defendant or potential defendant, or anyone
else except a judge presiding over a court of law having jurisdiction
over an actual case or controversy involving the license, can
interpret the application of a license under the law in a legally
binding way.
The FSF is sticking to its guns and has not yet had to drag anyone
before an actual judge to get the matter decided. Various possible
candidates for such dragging have apparently decided that their
chances weren't too good.
As for the copying-from-disk doctrine, that's purely guesswork on my
part. The FSF has not publicly disclosed its legal strategy for if
and when a case comes up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hunter
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:59 am Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
| Quote: | "Paul" == Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
|
Paul> Various possible candidates for such dragging have
Paul> apparently decided that their chances weren't too good.
Or simply that it wasn't worth the cost to go to court, even if they
presumed they would eventually win.
JDH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Brodie
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:57 am Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
"Tim Churches" <tchur@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1861.1107484943.22381.python-list@python.org...
| Quote: | 1) In Australia and Europe at least, loading program code from disc into memory in
order to execute it is not considered as making an infringing copy under copyright law.
|
I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Sony won their modchip case in Britain
for exactly that reason. They lost in Australia and elsewhere in Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Churches
*nix forums addict
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
Richard Brodie wrote:
| Quote: | "Tim Churches" <tchur@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1861.1107484943.22381.python-list@python.org...
1) In Australia and Europe at least, loading program code from disc into memory in
order to execute it is not considered as making an infringing copy under copyright law.
I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Sony won their modchip case in Britain
for exactly that reason. They lost in Australia and elsewhere in Europe.
In Australia, the following law applies: |
***************************
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 (as amended by the Copyright Amendment Act
2000) - SECT 47B
*Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs*
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the copyright
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
in a literary work
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#literary_work>
that is a computer program
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47ab.html#computer_program>
is not infringed by the making of a reproduction
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47b.html#reproduction>
of the work
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s189.html#work>
if:
(a) the reproduction
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47b.html#reproduction>
is incidentally and automatically made as part of the technical process
of running a copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
of the program for the purposes for which the program was designed; and
(b) the running of the copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
is done by, or on behalf of, the owner or licensee of the copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a
reproduction
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47b.html#reproduction>
of a computer program
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47ab.html#computer_program>:
(a) from an infringing copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#infringing_copy>
of the computer
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47ab.html#computer_program>
program
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47ab.html#computer_program>;
or
(b) contrary to an express direction
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s248a.html#direct>
or licence
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s136.html#licence>
given by, or on behalf of, the owner of the copyright
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
in the computer program
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47ab.html#computer_program>
to the owner or licensee of the copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
from which the reproduction
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s47b.html#reproduction>
is made when the owner or licensee of that copy
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s10.html#copy>
acquired it.
***************************
Can't get much clearer than that. Furthermore, I see no express
directions or other provisions in the GPL which would invoke section
47(2). Indeed, the GPL says: "The act of running the Program is not
restricted".
Tim C |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Churches
*nix forums addict
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: [Fwd: [gnu.org #220719] Re: python and gpl]
|
|
|
Tim Churches wrote:
| Quote: | Can't get much clearer than that.
|
Whoops! Sorry about all the embedded HTML links, making it most unclear.
Here is the relevant Australian law in a clearer form:
| Quote: | COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 (as amended by the Copyright Amendment Act
2000) - SECT 47B
*Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programs*
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the copyright in a
literary work that is a computer program is not infringed by the
making of a reproduction of the work if:
(a) the reproduction is incidentally and
automatically made as part of the technical process of running a copy
of the program for the purposes for which the program was designed; and
(b) the running of the copy is done by, or on
behalf of, the owner or licensee of the copy .
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a
reproduction of a computer program:
(a) from an infringing copy of the computer
program ; or
(b) contrary to an express direction or
licence given by, or on behalf of, the owner of the copyright in the
computer program to the owner or licensee of the copy from which the
reproduction is made when the owner or licensee of that copy acquired it.
|
I see no express directions or other provisions in the GPL which would
invoke section 47(2). Indeed, the GPL says: "The act of running the
Program is not restricted".
Tim C |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:58 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage | Bankruptcy | Mobile Phones | Codigo da vinci | Web Advertising
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Programming
»
python
