After my post about kivy I saw pudquick's post about licensing earlier in this thread:
I also looked at what kivy (who also produce the python-for-android environment which I used) said about it:
<blockquote>Kivy is released under the terms of the GNU LGPL Version 3. ... An online version of the license can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt
In a nutshell the license allows you to use Kivy in your own projects, regardless of whether they are open source, closed source, commercial or free. The one thing the license does enforce is that if you make changes to the Kivy sourcecode itself, you have to share those changes with us. For a more thorough legal explanation ....
</blockquote>(From http://kivy.org/docs/) Which is not quite the same emphasis - but the licence itself is pretty clear and confirms pudquick's post.
Much seems to depend on static vs dynamic linking - about which I know little. This seems to be summed up here:
<blockquote>Proprietary Source code + LGPL Source code
- statically linked: You must release both parts as LGPL.
- dynamically linked: LGPL code stays LGPL, you can keep the proprietary code proprietary.</blockquote>
(Do iOS apps differ from an Android ones in that respect?)
Could a scripting app, like Pythonista, provide a version of the kivy libraries without itself linking to them? Arguably the scripting app would then not be an 'Application' under the definition in the LGPL. That would put the onus on whoever writes a script using kivy: if that were 'conveyed' they would be subject to the LGPL.
Kivy's python-for-Android may be a special case - they own kivy. But I see that Qpython for Android provides a kivy library and promotes building apps. (I suggest we don't discuss it's licensing here though.)