Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-12 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:28:54AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Indeed. A dependency may also mean that the package is a binary extension > module for the Python interpreter which will be linked dynamically with the > interpreter (at some time, when the module is imported). > > In this case,

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-08 Thread Richard Stallman
Someone wrote this: > I am disappointed that RMS is fighting over something as trivial as a > company asking that legal issues be settled in their home state > (country). This is common practice. I am not fighting, I am pointing out the situation as it exists. I don't believe the CN

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-08 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > Still, if 1.6 were to replace 1.5.2, we had to check all packages that > > depend on Python, if we think their license is still compatible with the > > new Python license, and remove them if it's not. I'd opt

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-08 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > I don't see us making this kind of check for code written in perl, or > code wirtten in C, or any other language. Perl is available under two licenses: GPL + Artistic. Not much room for a reasonable person to introduce conflict there.

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-08 Thread "Jürgen A. Erhard"
> "Gregor" == Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Gregor> 1) Ignore Python 1.6 and up, as long as the license is not compatible Gregor>with the GPL. That's probably the easiest way to go, but is it Gregor>justified ? Looks like a deliberate discrimination ag

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-07 Thread Joey Hess
Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Still, if 1.6 were to replace 1.5.2, we had to check all packages that > depend on Python, if we think their license is still compatible with the > new Python license, and remove them if it's not. I'd opt against this. Hm, I'm confused. Are you saying that you think that

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-07 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:50:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:17AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > I am disappointed that RMS is fighting over something as trivial as a > > company asking that legal issues be settled in their home state > > (country). Thi

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-07 Thread Christian Surchi
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:49:20PM +0400, Alexey Vyskubov wrote: > Pyhton 2.0 is released already. And it doesn't seems that 2.0 solve the > license incompatibility... It's not a stable release. bye Christian -- Christian Surchi | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] FLUG: http://

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-07 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:17AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > I think that we are going to see more and more cases of GPL > "incompatibilities" > as time goes on. Agreed; although market forces are driving many software development houses towards "Open Source", they're still trying to sq

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-07 Thread Craig Sanders
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:37:17AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > 1) Ignore Python 1.6 and up, as long as the license is not compatible > >with the GPL. That's probably the easiest way to go, but is it > >justified ? Looks like a deliberate discrimination against a > >DFSG-free l

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-06 Thread Alexey Vyskubov
> Python 1.5 I wouldn't put two Python versions into Debian. Also Python > 2.0 will probably be released before the next code freeze and solve > the license issues. Pyhton 2.0 is released already. And it doesn't seems that 2.0 solve the license incompatibility... Am I wrong? I hope I am... :( --

RE: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-06 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> > 1) Ignore Python 1.6 and up, as long as the license is not compatible >with the GPL. That's probably the easiest way to go, but is it >justified ? Looks like a deliberate discrimination against a >DFSG-free license, only because it's not GPL compatible. > > 2) Include both Python

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-06 Thread Andreas Voegele
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Python 1.6 was released finally today (for an announcement, see > http://www.python.org/1.6/), and it was released under the > discussed CNRI license. This license was intended to be > compatible with the GPL, but RMS says he thinks it'

Re: Python 1.6 released and GPL incompatible

2000-09-06 Thread Jules Bean
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:43:21AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > Still, if 1.6 were to replace 1.5.2, we had to check all packages that > depend on Python, if we think their license is still compatible with the > new Python license, and remove them if it's not. I'd opt against this. Yup, that