From: Joerg Lehmann <joergl@us...>  20061102 12:44:19

Hello Alan, On 30.10.06, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Christoph apparently wrote: > > http://kib2.free.fr/geoPyX > 2. Did you really think about the license before > picking it? Most "academic" software, including yours, is > IMO best served by the MIT license. > > If you are concerned that this is a "derivative > work" well IANAL but I do not think so > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html (and > such complicated considerations again highlight the > clean simplicity of the MIT license) IANAL neither, but just to make this point clear: If a module using PyX, which is licensed under the GPL, is considered to be a derivative work, then it can only be distributed and/or if it is published free of charge under the terms of the GPL. [1] Now the question whether a work is a derivative work or not can be a rather subtle one. The most prominent example in the context of the GPL is arguably the case of binaryonly Linux kernel modules. The opinions as to whether they are allowed according to the GPL or not strongly differ. So I really do not want to start a discussion on the question whether modules using PyX are derivative works, but I can only recommend anybody who wants to be on the safe side to license work using PyX under the GPL. Alternatively, one can obtain PyX under a proprietary license from the authors. [2] Jörg [1] Sect. 2 of the GNU General Public license. [2] http://pyx.sourceforge.net/license.html 