On 29/01/2006, at 7:00 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Again: What matters is what ends up in the source distribution,
> http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4/Python-2.4.tgz
No really that is wrong. What matters is what is in the Python
executables, but you don't want to know that. So I will bow
On 28/01/2006, at 8:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> The compiler needs specific exemptions because parts of the GPLed
>> runtime libraries are included in all compiled code. No part of the
>> autotools ends up in the finished code. If it did, you would need m4
>> to run Python and you don't.
>
>
On 29/01/2006, at 5:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
> aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
> the GPL;
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution.
OTOH this (from python-sig-mac) is a worry if it is correct:
> s> Apparently the readline library in MacOSX isn't really
> readline.
> s> It's a renamed libedit. Not having encountered this deception
> s> before, Python's build procedure doesn't know to test the
> capability
>
On 29/01/2006, at 5:48 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
> aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
> the GPL;
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution.
On 28/01/2006, at 8:04 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> The compiler needs specific exemptions because parts of the GPLed
>> runtime libraries are included in all compiled code. No part of the
>> autotools ends up in the finished code. If it did, you would need m4
>> to run Python and you don't.
>
>
Hye-Shik Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well done! Would you like to derive a Python patch from that?
>
> Yup. I'll do.
>
> On 1/30/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's great! Would you like to integrate these chan
On 1/30/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well done! Would you like to derive a Python patch from that?
Yup. I'll do.
On 1/30/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's great! Would you like to integrate these changes into to ctypes
> CVS repository yourself? I inden
Hye-Shik Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/28/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> > Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
>> > licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
>>
>> My understanding t
Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
>>>2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
>>>AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
>>
>>It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
>
>
> Does this
Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
> I did some work to make ctypes+libffi compacter and liberal.
> http://openlook.org/svnpublic/ctypes-compactffi/ (svn)
>
> I removed sources/gcc and put sources/libffi copied from gcc 4.0.2.
> And removed all automake-related build processes and integrated
> them into setup
""Martin v. Löwis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Michael Hudson wrote:
>> I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
>> 2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
>> AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
>
>
On 1/28/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
> > Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
> > licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
>
> My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) o
Michael Hudson wrote:
> I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
> 2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
> AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
Regards,
Martin
_
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The source distribution would contain aclocal.m4; it would not
> contain the autoconf/autoheader tools themselves.
To a rather different point, do we need aclocal.m4 at all? This is
the log for aclocal.m4:
-
Bill Northcott wrote:
> What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
> autoconf source distribution. A configure script is built up from lots
> of code fragments out of the autoconf and automake M4 files, and would
> clearly be covered by GPL.
No. As I just said in the other
Bill Northcott wrote:
> The build tools: m4 scripts, the configure shell script and the
> Makefiles all contain GPL code and are under GPL.
>
> However, none of this ends up in the 'finished program' which is the
> executable versions of Python and its associated libraries. The build
> tools a
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
> should be no issues.
Yes, but your conclusion is wrong. Python uses autoconf, but not
aclocal/automake. The generated configure is explicitly not covered by
the GPL; the status of the generated aclocal.
On 28/01/2006, at 10:41 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> You misunderstand the GPL. Section 2b) is pretty clear that any
> application that contains GPL-licensed code must be, itself,
> distributed
> under the terms ofthe GPL
Quite so, but using the autotools does NOT include any GPL code in
the r
> "Martin" == Martin v Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> Instead, it means we need a build process for libffi which is
Martin> independent of autoconf (or convince the authors of aclocal.m4 to
Martin> relicense it, but that is likely futile).
Martin> As a matter of fact, Python itself
On Jan 27, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> I guess I understood this already. The difference to the C
> compiler is
> that the compiler is not 'bundled' with Python, it is installed
> separately.
>
> Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with
> the GPL
> licen
> "Giovanni" == Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Giovanni> This would be a new interpretation of the license. The whole
Giovanni> autotools chain is GPL and it is used on way too many
Giovanni> programs which are not GPL. They're so many I won't even
Giovanni> mention one. Anyway, IAN
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
> [I've added python-dev to cc:]
>
> Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >> Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for building
> >> (or maybe for regene
Bill Northcott wrote:
> Quite so, but using the autotools does NOT include any GPL code in the
> resulting program.
Hmm. Please take a look at
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ctypes/ctypes/source/gcc/libffi/aclocal.m4?rev=1.1.4.1
This file contains a large number of licensing t
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> This would be a new interpretation of the license. The whole autotools chain
> is
> GPL and it is used on way too many programs which are not GPL. They're so many
> I won't even mention one. Anyway, IANAL, so if you're really concerned you can
> mail the FSF and ask clarific
Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the
>> GPL
>> licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
>
> My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
> the GPL.
This would be a new i
Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
>> should be no issues.
>
> [Anthony Green]
I guess I wasn't clear. aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build
libffi. Like your
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> That's no different. If you burn a CD containing a copy of the GCC and a
> copy of a commercial software you are not violating any license. If you
> distribute an .ISO file containing a copy of the GCC and a copy of a
> commercial software, you are not violating any license.
Thomas Heller wrote:
> Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
> licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
the GPL.
However, I still think it is possible to include libff
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there
> should be no issues.
[Anthony Green]
>>> I guess I wasn't clear. aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build
>>> libffi. Like your C compiler. Bundling it with the Python source
>>> d
Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
> Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 needed at all for building
> (or maybe for regenerating the configure scripts), or is it optional?
aclocal.m4 is required, but is onl
Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> [I've added python-dev to cc:]
>>
>> Anthony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 17:08 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> >> Anyway, another question is: Is aclocal.m4 n
32 matches
Mail list logo
