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,
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
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
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.
> "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
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
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
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://
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
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
> 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... :(
--
>
> 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
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'
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
14 matches
Mail list logo