Re: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue

[Thomas Heller <theller at python dot net>]

Anthony Green <green@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> [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).
>
> 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 distribution
> should have no impact on the licensing of Python itself, since it isn't
> really part of the resulting Python binary - just like your C compiler
> isn't.

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
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?

Thomas