This is the mail archive of the libffi-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the libffi project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

(libffi) Re: Copyright issue

From: Thomas Heller <theller at python dot net>
To: Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>
Cc: libffi-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com, python-dev at python dot org
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:03:58 +0100
Subject: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue
References: <1137071518.12975.6.camel@devel002> <m3zmlzzwn2.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <1137186878.3098.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> <wtglmz6e.fsf_-_@python.net> <1138378937.3090.255.camel@localhost.localdomain>

[I've added python-dev to cc:]

Anthony Green <green@redhat.com> 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 regenerating the configure scripts), or is it optional?
>
> aclocal.m4 is required, but is only used as a build-time tool.  The fact
> that aclocal.m4 is distributed under the GPL should have no impact on
> the licensing terms used for software built using aclocal.m4.

If I understand correctly this means that the Python source distribution
would have to be GPL licensed, while the built programs would be able to
use another license.

I'm pretty sure this kills the whole idea (to include libffi in python).

Thanks, Thomas

Follow-Ups:
- Re: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue
  - From: Anthony Green

References:
- libffi AMD64
  - From: Matthieu Le Gall
- Re: libffi AMD64
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: libffi AMD64
  - From: Anthony Green
- Copyright issue (was: Re: libffi AMD64)
  - From: Thomas Heller
- Re: Copyright issue (was: Re: libffi AMD64)
  - From: Anthony Green

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]