On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:25 AM, David Grundberg
<address@hidden> wrote:
Søren Hauberg wrote:
> tor, 19 11 2009 kl. 08:34 +0100, skrev David Grundberg:
>
>> I think its unnecessary to discuss Octave at all. Pytave is licensed
>> under GPLv3 on its own, and it doesn't matter what libraries it in turn
>> uses. Since Pytave consists of Python code and is GPLv3, any other
>> Python script that uses Pytave is a derivate work of Pytave.
>>
>
> I don't think you can make license requirements about _scripts_. See,
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> Søren
>
I've read it all but I don't see how it is an argument against my
statement. In fact, FSF argues for my statement. See the last paragraph:
"A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
classes in your program, you must release the program in a
GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java
interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on."
Perl modules or Java classes are analogous to Python modules. If you use
GPL Python modules, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way.
The key is the word "using" .
As soon as the python program uses gplv3 libraries (ie. pytave libraries) it requires to be GPLed. However, if it just runs in an pytave environment but does not use any of the pytave libraries, it doesn't have to be GPLed.
"if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes" means that you call functions of these.
Regards,
Ulrich