On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > Still, if 1.6 were to replace 1.5.2, we had to check all packages that
> > depend on Python, if we think their license is still compatible with the
> > new Python license, and remove them if it's not. I'd opt against this.
>
> Hm, I'm confused. Are you saying that you think that code written in
> pthon must have a license that is compatable with python's license?
>
> I don't see us making this kind of check for code written in perl, or
> code wirtten in C, or any other language.
That's why I wrote that we have to check the packages that
_depend_on_Python_ ;-)
No need to worry, I don't want to open that can of worms with a discussion
about the relation between interpreted code and the interpreter. I don't see
this as an issue here.
Still the issue is:
A dependency on python-base either says that the package has code written in
Python and therefore needs a Python interpreter to run. No problem here.
> Or are you really only talking about packages that dymanically or
> statically link with python?
Indeed. A dependency may also mean that the package is a binary extension
module for the Python interpreter which will be linked dynamically with the
interpreter (at some time, when the module is imported).
In this case, if the module contains GPL code, I would currently stay away
from distributing it with a dependency on Python 1.6.
Gregor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
