Closed pombredanne closed 1 year ago
Hello,
thank you for raising this point. I didn't think about it so far. Indeed, one has to distinguish
python-appimage
application / Python package,--manylinux
option).--app
option).My, intent was to GPL only A. My understanding is that B and C depend on their software content. Thus, I would say that B is PSF licensed, and that C (which builds over B) should conform at least to PSF, as well as to any added software.
Now, there is some complication because A actually adds a few hooks to vanilla CPython
, the like sitecustomize.py
. Thus, there might be some ambiguity at that level. Yet, my intent is that B should still be PSF licensed.
Does this make sense?
@niess Thank you ++ for the detailed and clear explanation! You wrote:
Now, there is some complication because A actually adds a few hooks to vanilla CPython, the like sitecustomize.py. Thus, there might be some ambiguity at that level. Yet, my intent is that B should still be PSF licensed.
For sake of clarity, it would be awesome if these few hooks would be also PSF-licensed, so that things are 100% clear.
@pombredanne,
I have updated the license. In order to keep things simple, the files that get bundled in the AppImage (located under python_appimage/data
) are now explicitly MIT licensed. Thus, the resulting AppImage should be GPL free (mostly PSF, except for AppImage-specific hooks &metadata that are MIT).
I also updated the README accordingly.
Does this work?
@niess you rock! Thank you ++ and happy new year! :tada:
Happy new year :)
You're welcome.
Then, I am closing this.
Hi! Thanks for this project. We are considering using this as a based for AppImages for https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit and a few other FOSS projects and I have a licensing question:
Your project code here is GPL-licensed alright, but do you consider the generated AppImages to be also subject to the GPL? @jonoyang FYI