Re: Licensing?
On 2023-02-03, Greg Ewing wrote: > On 3/02/23 6:38 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> If you change someone else's code then you have created a derived >> work, which requires permission from both the original author and you >> to copy. (Unless you change it so much that nothing remains of the >> original author's code, of course.) > > "Nothing" is probably a bit extreme; somewhere between "exactly the > same" and "completely different" there will be a borderline case, > although exactly where the border lies would require a court case > to determine. Well yes, technically if you remove so much code that what remains of the original is so de minimis that it can't be considered copyrightable then you're good. But that doesn't seem that useful to know, because if you've removed that much then what remains, pretty much by definition, isn't going to be useful. You'd be better off simply starting from scratch and having an unimpeachable claim to own the entire copyright yourself. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing?
On 3/02/23 6:38 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: If you change someone else's code then you have created a derived work, which requires permission from both the original author and you to copy. (Unless you change it so much that nothing remains of the original author's code, of course.) "Nothing" is probably a bit extreme; somewhere between "exactly the same" and "completely different" there will be a borderline case, although exactly where the border lies would require a court case to determine. When in doubt, the sensible and courteous thing would be to include the original copyright notice as requested, maybe with a "based on work by..." attribution. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing?
On 2023-02-02, Stefan Ram wrote: > Many licenses in the Python world are like: "You can make > changes, but have to leave in my Copyright notice.". > > Would it be possible that the original author could not > claim a Copyright anymore when code has been changed? No. If you change someone else's code then you have created a derived work, which requires permission from both the original author and you to copy. (Unless you change it so much that nothing remains of the original author's code, of course.) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: setup.py and licensing questions
Ben Finney wrote: > songbird writes: > >> can i put multiple License lines in setup.py >> classifiers like: ? >> >> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", >> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", > > Yes. > > The semantics of that are not formalised, to my knowledge. You would be > signaling that the specified licenses are involved somehow, but not how > they combine for this specific work. ok, thanks, that's good to know. i will have a list of each file i've used from elsewhere, where it came from and as best as i can figure it out the licenses/copyright holders and/or permissions. i'm not using anyone else's code but i am using some artwork and a man page that i've adapted. > For this reason (and others) you should always put an explicit, > unambiguous *grant of license* in the work, preferably in the README > document or somewhere prominent like that. > > The grant of license is a statement, preferably brief, that says exactly > what the work is, who holds copyright, who receives a grant of license, > and what that grants the recipient to do, under what explicit conditions. > > For example: > > Copyright © 2018 Ben Finney > Purple Drachma is free software: you are free to copy, modify, > and/or distribute this work under the conditions of the GNU Affero > General Public License, version 3 or later as published by the Free > Software Foundation. See the file LICENSE.AGPL-3.0 for details. yes, i'll be putting a license on the code and any of the artwork i've made. thank you, songbird -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: setup.py and licensing questions
songbird writes: > can i put multiple License lines in setup.py > classifiers like: ? > > "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", > "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", Yes. The semantics of that are not formalised, to my knowledge. You would be signaling that the specified licenses are involved somehow, but not how they combine for this specific work. For this reason (and others) you should always put an explicit, unambiguous *grant of license* in the work, preferably in the README document or somewhere prominent like that. The grant of license is a statement, preferably brief, that says exactly what the work is, who holds copyright, who receives a grant of license, and what that grants the recipient to do, under what explicit conditions. For example: Copyright © 2018 Ben Finney Purple Drachma is free software: you are free to copy, modify, and/or distribute this work under the conditions of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or later as published by the Free Software Foundation. See the file LICENSE.AGPL-3.0 for details. -- \ “You don't need a book of any description to help you have some | `\kind of moral awareness.” —Dr. Francesca Stavrakoloulou, bible | _o__) scholar, 2011-05-08 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
setup.py and licensing questions
hi, i'm currently working through all the packaging and licensing stuff for my project and want to put the license in the setup.py file, but there may actually be more than one license (GPL ones for the artwork i've borrowed from another project and whatever license i choose to put on my own code and the artwork i've done). can i put multiple License lines in setup.py classifiers like: ? "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", "License :: OSI Approved :: ???", thanks, songbird -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The curses module and licensing
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Benjamin Schnitzler wrote: > By the way: Sorry for posting the statement of Chris Angelico to > the list, it wasn't meant to be on it. Apology accepted :) It was off-list mainly because it strayed off-topic, not because there was anything particularly private in it. No harm done! ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The curses module and licensing
On 19:28 Thu 06 Dec , Alister wrote: > If I understand things correctly this means if you distribute the python > package (alone or as part of your application) then you need to include > the detailed section. > > if you provide just your own python code & require the user to install > python & any necessary modules (which would be needed for windoze users > python is usually installed or at least included in the repository's of > most Linux Distros)then this restriction does not apply. > > the copyright is for the python interpreter & modules not your own > personal code. Ok, thank you! I think I am clear about it now. As you might have guessed, python will not be distributed with the package. By the way: Sorry for posting the statement of Chris Angelico to the list, it wasn't meant to be on it. > > > -- > I know on which side my bread is buttered. > -- John Heywood > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The curses module and licensing
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:34:04 +0100, benjamin schnitzler wrote: > I think I have accidentially not sent this to the python list: > > On 02:17 Fri 07 Dec , Chris Angelico wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Here's some info on ncurses: >> >> http://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html >> >> I would generally assume that it's safe to use any Python standard >> library module without worrying about what license its underlying >> library/ies are distributed under - because I trust the Python core >> developers to ensure that they're creating a product that's not bound >> by unexpected license terms. But you'll probably get an on-list >> response with more detail. >> >> Chris Angelico > Thanks for your answer. I guess you're right. It's just, that I never > really worked for a project where I got into license issues. (At least I > think so.) And I am not really used to it. > The FAQ states: > > "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, > copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, distribute with modifications, > sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, > and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, > subject to the following conditions: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ABOVE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, > DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR > OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR > THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright > holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the > sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > authorization." > > "...to deal in the Software without restriction..." > "...distribute, distribute with modifications, sublicense..." > > Sounds good. Ok, but I have to include this into all "copies or > substantial portions of the Software" . Ok, thats a bit vague. > And if I include this notice into my files: It sounds a bit, as if this > would be then a copyright for them. > Substantial portions are, I guess, the libraries themselves. > Which are other substantial portions? Those files which extend the > libraries maybe? I looked into the files of my /usr/lib/python2.7/curses > directory. None of them had this text portion from above included. On > the other hand the FAQ also states that the Free Software Foundation, > who got hold of the copyright, had promised to use the above > distribution terms only for 5 years, which was in 1998, so it might not > be relevant at all. Well ok. I guess I can just leave my files, as they > are, > since they are no real extensions of the library. But I am not > completely sure. If anyone has a better idea: Just let me know it. > > Benjamin > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Benjamin Schnitzler < > benjaminschnitz...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> I am new to this list. >> I have a question concerning the curses module (I am using python2.7). >> Which license does this module have? Is it bases completely on the >> curses library? In the documentation the following is stated: >> >> "The curses module provides an interface to the curses library, >> the de-facto standard for portable advanced terminal handling." >> >> But also: >> >> "Changed in version 1.6: Added support for the ncurses library and >> converted to a package." >> >> Is it maybe built on both libraries? However, the crucial point is, >> that I want to build a curses terminal interface for some GPL software >> project. Can You give me a hint, if that is possible (yes, I know, You >> are no lawyers) and if and where I have to include licensing >> informations regarding the license of curses/ncurses ? >> >> Thank You >> >> Benjamin >> > I think I have accidentially not sent this to the python > list:On 02:17 Fri 07 Dec , Chris Angelico > wrote:> Hi!> > Here's some > info o
Re: The curses module and licensing
I think I have accidentially not sent this to the python list: On 02:17 Fri 07 Dec , Chris Angelico wrote: > Hi! > > Here's some info on ncurses: > > http://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html > > I would generally assume that it's safe to use any Python standard > library module without worrying about what license its underlying > library/ies are distributed under - because I trust the Python core > developers to ensure that they're creating a product that's not bound > by unexpected license terms. But you'll probably get an on-list > response with more detail. > > Chris Angelico Thanks for your answer. I guess you're right. It's just, that I never really worked for a project where I got into license issues. (At least I think so.) And I am not really used to it. The FAQ states: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, distribute with modifications, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE ABOVE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization." "...to deal in the Software without restriction..." "...distribute, distribute with modifications, sublicense..." Sounds good. Ok, but I have to include this into all "copies or substantial portions of the Software" . Ok, thats a bit vague. And if I include this notice into my files: It sounds a bit, as if this would be then a copyright for them. Substantial portions are, I guess, the libraries themselves. Which are other substantial portions? Those files which extend the libraries maybe? I looked into the files of my /usr/lib/python2.7/curses directory. None of them had this text portion from above included. On the other hand the FAQ also states that the Free Software Foundation, who got hold of the copyright, had promised to use the above distribution terms only for 5 years, which was in 1998, so it might not be relevant at all. Well ok. I guess I can just leave my files, as they are, since they are no real extensions of the library. But I am not completely sure. If anyone has a better idea: Just let me know it. Benjamin On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Benjamin Schnitzler < benjaminschnitz...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am new to this list. > I have a question concerning the curses module (I am using > python2.7). Which license does this module have? Is it bases > completely on the curses library? In the documentation the > following is stated: > > "The curses module provides an interface to the curses library, > the de-facto standard for portable advanced terminal handling." > > But also: > > "Changed in version 1.6: Added support for the ncurses library > and converted to a package." > > Is it maybe built on both libraries? However, the crucial point > is, that I want to build a curses terminal interface for some GPL > software project. Can You give me a hint, if that is possible > (yes, I know, You are no lawyers) and if and where I have to > include licensing informations regarding the license of > curses/ncurses ? > > Thank You > > Benjamin > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The curses module and licensing
Hello everyone, I am new to this list. I have a question concerning the curses module (I am using python2.7). Which license does this module have? Is it bases completely on the curses library? In the documentation the following is stated: "The curses module provides an interface to the curses library, the de-facto standard for portable advanced terminal handling." But also: "Changed in version 1.6: Added support for the ncurses library and converted to a package." Is it maybe built on both libraries? However, the crucial point is, that I want to build a curses terminal interface for some GPL software project. Can You give me a hint, if that is possible (yes, I know, You are no lawyers) and if and where I have to include licensing informations regarding the license of curses/ncurses ? Thank You Benjamin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: gnu readline licensing?
On 20-4-2010 20:09, Brendan Miller wrote: Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3 library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused because I thought python had a more BSD style license. Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would still be subject to GPL... might want to put a warning about that in the python library docs. IANAL but I think because Python itself doesn't include the readline library as part of the distribution (it is installed on your system by other means), you have nothing to worry about. Only when you start to include it as part of your program, then you have to worry about the license(s) involved. But I can be wrong here. -irmen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: gnu readline licensing?
On 4/20/10 3:49 PM, Brendan Miller wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Kern wrote: On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote: Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3 library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused because I thought python had a more BSD style license. The PSF License is more BSD-styled, yes. The readline module can also be built against the API-compatible, BSD-licensed libedit library. Python's source distribution (even the readline module source) does not have to be subject to the GPL, though it should be (and is) GPL-compatible. Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would still be subject to GPL... might want to put a warning about that in the python library docs. *When* someone builds a binary of the Python readline module against the GNU readline library, then that binary module is subject to the terms of the GPL. Any programs that distribute with and use that binary are also subject to the terms of the GPL (though it can have a non-GPL, GPL-compatible license like the PSF License). This only applies when they are combined with the GNU readline library, not before. The program must have a GPL-compatible license in order to be distributed that way. It can also be distributed independently of GNU readline under any license. Hmm... So if I ship python to a customer with proprietary software that runs on top of it, then I need to be careful to disable libreadline? Is there a configure flag for this or something? Just don't ship the readline.so module. That's the only thing that links to libreadline. Since libreadline is the default for Linux systems, and Python's license advertises itself as not being copyleft, and being embeddable and shippable... It would be nice if this were made clear. Maybe a note here about libreadline: http://python.org/psf/license/ http://bugs.python.org It seems to me that the whole of the python distribution would be GPL after being built with libreadline, so this would be an easy trap to fall into if you didn't realize that python used libreadline. No, the whole Python distribution does not magically become GPLed because one optional module that you may or may not load is compiled against a GPLed library. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: gnu readline licensing?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Kern wrote: > On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote: >> >> Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3 >> library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused >> because I thought python had a more BSD style license. > > The PSF License is more BSD-styled, yes. The readline module can also be > built against the API-compatible, BSD-licensed libedit library. Python's > source distribution (even the readline module source) does not have to be > subject to the GPL, though it should be (and is) GPL-compatible. > >> Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would >> still be subject to GPL... might want to put a warning about that in >> the python library docs. > > *When* someone builds a binary of the Python readline module against the GNU > readline library, then that binary module is subject to the terms of the > GPL. Any programs that distribute with and use that binary are also subject > to the terms of the GPL (though it can have a non-GPL, GPL-compatible > license like the PSF License). This only applies when they are combined with > the GNU readline library, not before. The program must have a GPL-compatible > license in order to be distributed that way. It can also be distributed > independently of GNU readline under any license. > Hmm... So if I ship python to a customer with proprietary software that runs on top of it, then I need to be careful to disable libreadline? Is there a configure flag for this or something? Since libreadline is the default for Linux systems, and Python's license advertises itself as not being copyleft, and being embeddable and shippable... It would be nice if this were made clear. Maybe a note here about libreadline: http://python.org/psf/license/ It seems to me that the whole of the python distribution would be GPL after being built with libreadline, so this would be an easy trap to fall into if you didn't realize that python used libreadline. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: gnu readline licensing?
On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote: Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3 library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused because I thought python had a more BSD style license. The PSF License is more BSD-styled, yes. The readline module can also be built against the API-compatible, BSD-licensed libedit library. Python's source distribution (even the readline module source) does not have to be subject to the GPL, though it should be (and is) GPL-compatible. Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would still be subject to GPL... might want to put a warning about that in the python library docs. *When* someone builds a binary of the Python readline module against the GNU readline library, then that binary module is subject to the terms of the GPL. Any programs that distribute with and use that binary are also subject to the terms of the GPL (though it can have a non-GPL, GPL-compatible license like the PSF License). This only applies when they are combined with the GNU readline library, not before. The program must have a GPL-compatible license in order to be distributed that way. It can also be distributed independently of GNU readline under any license. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
gnu readline licensing?
Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3 library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused because I thought python had a more BSD style license. Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would still be subject to GPL... might want to put a warning about that in the python library docs. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
filecmp.py licensing
Hi, As I mentioned on the other thread about samba, I am working on a synchronisation project and using filecmp.py for comparing files. I modified it according to my needs and planning to distribute it with my package. At first glance it seems that filecmp.py is a part of Python package. Though I don't see a licence header on the file I assume that it is licensed under PSFL. I will distribute my project with GNU GPL or Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. My question is if I renamed it and put the Python attribution on the header, would it be alright? What is the proper way of doing this? -- Fatih -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
FW: [Jython-users] Jython Licensing Question
All, Can anyone answer my question about the licensing for SocketServer.py? I would appreciate it. Kent -Original Message- From: Tobias Ivarsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:13 AM To: Pinegar, Kent T Subject: Re: [Jython-users] Jython Licensing Question No I don't, I spent a few minutes yesterday when researching in what revision it got in to try and find where a list of contributors who have signed the contributors agreement could be found, but without success. I think you should try asking on python-list (python-list@python.org), the e-mail list for discussion about Python in general. /Tobias On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Pinegar, Kent T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tobias, Thanks. Do you know where I can get information on CPython? Specifically, licensing information. Kent From: Tobias Ivarsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:10 AM To: Pinegar, Kent T Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Jython-users] Jython Licensing Question SocketServer.py is imported from CPython to where this copyright notice was committed in revision 18872, Jan 19 2001. IANAL so I don't know what is required to be able to redistribute this with Jython. But I guess that if it has been part of CPython since version 2.0 it should be fine for us as well... In fact this file (with that copyright notice) was included in the previous version of Jython as well. /Tobias On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Pinegar, Kent T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The file SocketServer.py in the latest version of Jython, contains a copyright by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton. There is not, however, any license agreement to cover this copyright in the Jython download. Does anyone know if this was an oversight, or existing licenses covers it? Kent Pinegar - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ ___ Jython-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-users -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
On 31 Mar, 09:36, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't have a printed copy, but Google Books has it (not sure which > edition I found) and page xix says: > > Given the nature of the cookbook, we wanted the recipes to be usable under > any circumstances where Python could be used. In other words, we wanted to > ensure completely unfettered use, in the same spirit as the Python license. > Unfortunately, the Python license cannot really be used to refer to > anything other than Python itself. As a compromise, we chose to use the > modified Berkeley license, which is considered the most liberal of > licenses. ... and then the license follows ... > > So, if the recipe is in the printed cookbook the licensing is clear > (primarily you must retain the copyright notice). The best advice I've found so far is the following: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html It spells out exactly what you have to do to satisfy the original licence and to uphold your own licence choice. It's also written by well-regarded legal people. Paul P.S. An older and more ambiguous conclusion on the topic can be found here: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/4c8b3114c35df368 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where > otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under > the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean > this licence: > > http://www.python.org/psf/license/ > I don't have a printed copy, but Google Books has it (not sure which edition I found) and page xix says: Given the nature of the cookbook, we wanted the recipes to be usable under any circumstances where Python could be used. In other words, we wanted to ensure completely unfettered use, in the same spirit as the Python license. Unfortunately, the Python license cannot really be used to refer to anything other than Python itself. As a compromise, we chose to use the modified Berkeley license, which is considered the most liberal of licenses. ... and then the license follows ... So, if the recipe is in the printed cookbook the licensing is clear (primarily you must retain the copyright notice). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
Paul Boddie wrote: > On 29 Mar, 20:24, DS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone >> will point me in the right direction. >> >> I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in >> python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code, >> there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to >> use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that >> would do the same thing. >> > > Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where > otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under > the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean > this licence: > > http://www.python.org/psf/license/ > > It's generally not recommended to use this licence for anything other > than Python because it mentions the need to reproduce the Python > copyright statement in derived works, which would be nonsense for > anything which isn't the Python distribution. However, one can infer > that the copyright notice specific to the software concerned should be > reproduced, and this is what the original CWI licence says. > > Of course, if a different licence is mentioned on the specific recipe > you're using, you have to observe the terms mentioned in that licence > instead. > > >> So, my options appear to be: >> 1. Don't use it. >> 2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right. >> 3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source. >> 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function >>along with the GPL for my code. >> >> What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is >> probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the >> book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless >> there is some massive use. >> > > You just need to do what's necessary to satisfy the licence applied to > the code you're using. If that's the Python licence, I would imagine > that reproducing the copyright statement and licence details would be > sufficient, even if your own work is GPL-licensed. > > What I've done when I've released work which incorporates other work > (itself available under a permissive licence) is to include the > copyright statements and the licence text for that other work, but > I've made it clear in the licensing information that the derived work > (my code incorporating the other code) is available under the specific > licence I've chosen, noting that the other work was made available > under a different licence. > > So I suppose that #4 is the closest, but you should be able to assert > that the entire work is GPL-licensed unless the recipe isn't licensed > in a GPL-compatible way, which would open up a range of other issues > that you hopefully won't have to deal with. ;-) > > Paul > > P.S. This isn't anything close to legal advice, so please take other > opinions into account. ;-) > Thanks for taking the time to write. I was also wondering about what ramifications there are from mixing code from other licenses. So, I guess if I was going to do it, I'd have a second license file for this specific function with the license for it. I definitely don't want to be in a situation where credit for someone else's work is not adequately documented. It has happened to me, I know how I felt about it at the time. At this point, I'm thinking that it is not worth messing with. What I am going to do is write a separate function to accomplish the same thing. It's only a few lines long. Of course, having seen the other code I'm forever tainted... There is something a little humorous about reading through the Python Cookbook. You have submissions from all these incredibly smart people with little gems of functions. But, if you actually use them, it's kind of a hassle. On the other hand, I'm glad the book exists, and my memory of the specific details of a function fade over time, but it has/does give my a better understanding in general of how do things. Thanks again. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
On 29 Mar, 20:24, DS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone > will point me in the right direction. > > I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in > python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code, > there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to > use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that > would do the same thing. Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean this licence: http://www.python.org/psf/license/ It's generally not recommended to use this licence for anything other than Python because it mentions the need to reproduce the Python copyright statement in derived works, which would be nonsense for anything which isn't the Python distribution. However, one can infer that the copyright notice specific to the software concerned should be reproduced, and this is what the original CWI licence says. Of course, if a different licence is mentioned on the specific recipe you're using, you have to observe the terms mentioned in that licence instead. > So, my options appear to be: > 1. Don't use it. > 2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right. > 3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source. > 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function >along with the GPL for my code. > > What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is > probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the > book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless > there is some massive use. You just need to do what's necessary to satisfy the licence applied to the code you're using. If that's the Python licence, I would imagine that reproducing the copyright statement and licence details would be sufficient, even if your own work is GPL-licensed. What I've done when I've released work which incorporates other work (itself available under a permissive licence) is to include the copyright statements and the licence text for that other work, but I've made it clear in the licensing information that the derived work (my code incorporating the other code) is available under the specific licence I've chosen, noting that the other work was made available under a different licence. So I suppose that #4 is the closest, but you should be able to assert that the entire work is GPL-licensed unless the recipe isn't licensed in a GPL-compatible way, which would open up a range of other issues that you hopefully won't have to deal with. ;-) Paul P.S. This isn't anything close to legal advice, so please take other opinions into account. ;-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
Scott David Daniels wrote: > DS wrote: > >> I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in >> python. I am planning to use GPL as the license. However, in my code, >> there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook >> So, my options appear to be: >> 1. Don't use it. >> 2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right. >> 3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source. >> > I vote for this. If you got it of the web site, include a url. If you > went for the book, I'd prefer crediting both, but at least give enough > so the interested reader can get back to some version of "the original." > > >> 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function >> along with the GPL for my code. >> What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is >> probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? >> > As the author of several of those recipes, I definitely expect others > to use them. I'd hate to slow them up by requiring them to ask > permission, but would appreciate an acknowledgment. > > -Scott David Daniels > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thanks for your perspective. I'll do both. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing
DS wrote: > I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in > python. I am planning to use GPL as the license. However, in my code, > there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook > So, my options appear to be: > 1. Don't use it. > 2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right. > 3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source. I vote for this. If you got it of the web site, include a url. If you went for the book, I'd prefer crediting both, but at least give enough so the interested reader can get back to some version of "the original." > 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function > along with the GPL for my code. > What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is > probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? As the author of several of those recipes, I definitely expect others to use them. I'd hate to slow them up by requiring them to ask permission, but would appreciate an acknowledgment. -Scott David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Licensing
I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone will point me in the right direction. I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code, there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that would do the same thing. So, my options appear to be: 1. Don't use it. 2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right. 3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source. 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function along with the GPL for my code. What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless there is some massive use. Thanks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Proper licensing and copyright attribution for extracted Python code
Hi. I extracted getpath.c out of Python and modified it to make a generally useful facility for C and C++ programming. These comments are at the top of my .c file, and I would like to know if they pass muster for meeting licensing, copyright, and aesthetics requirements: // -*- Mode: C; fill-column: 79 -*- //= // Description: // // pathToExecutable.c is a module that allows a Unix program to find the // location of its executable. This capability is extremely useful for // writing programs that don't have to recompiled in order to be relocated // within the filesystem. Any auxiliary files (dynamically loaded // libraries, help files, configuration files, etc.) can just be placed in // the same directory as the executable, and the function // pathToExecutable() can be used by the program at runtime to locate its // executable file and from there the program can locate any auxiliary // files it needs in order to operate. // // pathToExecutable() is smart enough to follow a symlink (or even a chain // of symlinks) in order to find the true location of the executable. In // this manner, for instance, you might install all of the files used by a // program (let's say it's called "my-program"), including the executable, // into the directory /usr/local/lib/my-program, and then put a symlink // into /usr/local/bin that points to the executable // /usr/local/lib/my-program/my-program. Initially pathToExecutable() // will identify /usr/local/bin/my-program as the executable, but it will // then notice that this "file" is really a symbolic link. // pathToExecutable() will then follow the symbolic link and return // "/usr/local/lib/my-program/my-pogram" instead. // // Before a program can call pathToExecutable(), setArgv() must be called // (canonically in main()) so that pathToExecutable() can fetch the value // of argv[0] and use it to help figure out where the executable is // located. // // Copyright and licensing information: // // This software is a heavily modified version of getpath.c from the // Python 2.5.1 release. Both this software and the original software // from which it is derived are freely distributable under the terms of // the permissive freeware license, Python Software Foundation License // Version 2. You can read more about this license here: // // http://www.python.org/psf/license // // The original software from which this software is derived carries the // following copyright: // // Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Python // Software Foundation. // // The modifications to the original software, which are contained herein, // are // // Copyright (c) 2007 Douglas Alan // //= Thanks, |>oug -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows
To paraphrase an applicant for a job vacancy we're currently filling when asked to give an example of their problem solving skills: A client had a problem with Windows XP on his laptop. I reformatted his hard disk and installed Red Hat. Problem solved. -- Dale Strickland-Clark Riverhall Systems - www.riverhall.co.uk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
sturlamolden wrote: > Maybe someone have gone through the trouble and got a clear answer from > Microsoft. As far as companies go the EULA is as clear of an answer as you can possibly hope for. As for the original post, don't bother with it this issue, the chances that MS will start harassing you for including this DLL is just about zero. You could just as well worry that someone patented the right click or the scroll bar. i. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
Martin v. Löwis wrote: > As Fredrik Lundh says: Ask your lawyer. We cannot really interpret the > Microsoft license for you (I can only give it to you in case you don't > have it), and I can't formally give you permission to do copy something > that Microsoft has the copyright to. I wasn't asking you to. > So what do you hope to get from the newsgroup article? Maybe someone have gone through the trouble and got a clear answer from Microsoft. > Free legal > advice? You can't really get that; you can only get opinions. You > still have to draw your own conclusions. You only get "opinions" from lawyers as well. I am not really interested in anyone's opinion, lawyer or not. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
sturlamolden schrieb: > Is further "distribution" okay if it is only accompanied by the python > runtime DLL (as is the case when using Py2Exe) or should the entire > python-2.4.4.msi from python.org be "distributed"? As Fredrik Lundh says: Ask your lawyer. We cannot really interpret the Microsoft license for you (I can only give it to you in case you don't have it), and I can't formally give you permission to do copy something that Microsoft has the copyright to. If you are asking whether python24.dll should be treated as "Licensee Software": then yes, I believe it is "Licensee Software". > I certainly don't understand the EULA, and thus I cannot make sure that > I lawyer understands it either. But I can certainly find a lawyer that > charges an hour and pretends to understand it. I am sure buying a > copy of VC7 is a lot cheaper. So what do you hope to get from the newsgroup article? Free legal advice? You can't really get that; you can only get opinions. You still have to draw your own conclusions. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
sturlamolden wrote: > I certainly don't understand the EULA, and thus I cannot make sure that > I lawyer understands it either. But I can certainly find a lawyer that > charges an hour and pretends to understand it. I am sure buying a > copy of VC7 is a lot cheaper. When you buy that copy of VC7, buy me one too. By your logic, it will _still_ be cheaper than for a lawyer, so you win! Thanks in advance! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
Fredrik Lundh wrote: I am not intentionally posting FUD. >"As long as you're using a standard Python build, you don't need to >buy VC7 to [legally redistribute the C runtime]. The python.org team >use a properly licensed VC7 to build Python, which turns Python into >"licensee software" and you into a "distributor" doing "further >distribution" of Python to end users (with your own stuff added on >top, of course). That makes sence. One does not need a VC7 license to sell (aka "distribute") software from a store either. >And further distribution is perfectly okay, as long >as you only ship the MS components together with proper "licensee >software" (=Python), and that all parties respect the relevant >portions of the original EULA Is further "distribution" okay if it is only accompanied by the python runtime DLL (as is the case when using Py2Exe) or should the entire python-2.4.4.msi from python.org be "distributed"? >"(If in doubt, consult a real lawyer. If you do, make sure that he/she >understands the various levels here -- i.e. that "you" in the MS >EULA applies to the Python developers, not yourself)." I certainly don't understand the EULA, and thus I cannot make sure that I lawyer understands it either. But I can certainly find a lawyer that charges an hour and pretends to understand it. I am sure buying a copy of VC7 is a lot cheaper. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python's CRT licensing on Windows <-- FUD
sturlamolden wrote: > On Windows, the standard Python 2.4 distro is compiled with Microsoft > Visual C++ 2003 and is shipped with msvcr71.dll as a part of the binary > installer. That is ok, as those who has a license for Microsoft Visual > C++ 2003 is allowed to redistribute msvcr71.dll. Without a license for > Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 one it not allowed to redistribute this DLL. that's a myth, based on a flawed reading of the MS license. to repeat myself from various other fora: "As long as you're using a standard Python build, you don't need to buy VC7 to [legally redistribute the C runtime]. The python.org team use a properly licensed VC7 to build Python, which turns Python into "licensee software" and you into a "distributor" doing "further distribution" of Python to end users (with your own stuff added on top, of course). And further distribution is perfectly okay, as long as you only ship the MS components together with proper "licensee software" (=Python), and that all parties respect the relevant portions of the original EULA (this basically means that you cannot use tricks to circumvent the MS EULA, e.g. by attempting to relicense the MS DLL's under less restrictive licenses or "viral" licenses. The same applies to all other licensed components, of course. You cannot relicense the Python core either.)." "(If in doubt, consult a real lawyer. If you do, make sure that he/she understands the various levels here -- i.e. that "you" in the MS EULA applies to the Python developers, not yourself)." -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python's CRT licensing on Windows
On Windows, the standard Python 2.4 distro is compiled with Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 and is shipped with msvcr71.dll as a part of the binary installer. That is ok, as those who has a license for Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 is allowed to redistribute msvcr71.dll. Without a license for Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 one it not allowed to redistribute this DLL. This has some interesting implications: ** If you don't have Microsoft Visual C++ 2003, is it illegal to redistribute the binary Python installer from www.python.org? Does redistribution of Python also violate Microsoft's copyright on the CRT? And if so, is someone developing in Python required to ask the customer to download a binary installer from www.python.org (instead of shipping a copy)? ** Not everyone that develops in Python has a license for Microsoft Visual C++ 2003. I have the Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 Toolkit, but it only allows me to link and redistribute a static version of msvcr71. So, does this prevent me from using Py2Exe? ** It is apparently not possible to buy a license for VS2003 anymore, as the product has expired. One can only buy a new get a license for VS2005, which allows redistribution of msvcr81.dll, but not msvcr71.dll. Microsoft said something about a right to "downgrade the compiler" once a license for VS2005 is bought, but I am not sure if this applies to the crt redistribution rights as well. I understand that Microsoft has donated Microsoft Visual C++ 2003 compilers to key Python developers. That is generous of them. But what did they say about the crt licensing? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the >blog entry at > > http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > >noting the fact that this was indeed an April Fool's joke. That's what you *say*, but in fact the PS -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Look, it's your affair if you want to play with five people, but don't go calling it doubles." --John Cleese anticipates Usenet -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden >> It was an April Fool's joke. It's not actually true. >> > To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the > blog entry at > > http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > noting the fact that this was indeed an April Fool's joke. "Python Software Foundation News: Python 2.5 Licensing Change Saturday, April 01, 2006 Python 2.5 Licensing Change" Look at the date =) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Robert Kern wrote: > Francisco Reyes wrote: > >>Shane Hathaway writes: >> >> >>>I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython >>>developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof >>>ooutright open source llicenssing? >> >>I disagree with the change. I think Steve Holden is right. >> >>1- How do you enforce this? >>2- Those that do want to "do the right thing".. may opt for switching >>language isntead of paying. >>3- Users who have risked their jobs by introducing Python to their work >>place may not only be in a bad spot and likely switch away from Python, but >>some may actually LOOSE their jobs if the company they work for is sued. > > > It was an April Fool's joke. It's not actually true. > To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the blog entry at http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html noting the fact that this was indeed an April Fool's joke. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Francisco Reyes wrote: > Shane Hathaway writes: > >>I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython >>developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof >>ooutright open source llicenssing? > > I disagree with the change. I think Steve Holden is right. > > 1- How do you enforce this? > 2- Those that do want to "do the right thing".. may opt for switching > language isntead of paying. > 3- Users who have risked their jobs by introducing Python to their work > place may not only be in a bad spot and likely switch away from Python, but > some may actually LOOSE their jobs if the company they work for is sued. It was an April Fool's joke. It's not actually true. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Shane Hathaway writes: > I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython > developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof > ooutright open source llicenssing? I disagree with the change. I think Steve Holden is right. 1- How do you enforce this? 2- Those that do want to "do the right thing".. may opt for switching language isntead of paying. 3- Users who have risked their jobs by introducing Python to their work place may not only be in a bad spot and likely switch away from Python, but some may actually LOOSE their jobs if the company they work for is sued. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Philippe Martin wrote: > That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-) > Sorry ;-) regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-) Regards, Philippe Steve Holden wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described > in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think > it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, > reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from > contributing to the code base. > > If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do > something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of > Python as we know it. > > regards > Steve -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a >recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > > http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > >I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think >it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, >reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from >contributing to the code base. > >If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do >something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of >Python as we know it. The subject of this post really scared me. I was one of the driver developers for XFree86. They really DID change their license in XFree86 4.4, and within about 6 months, XFree86 was effectively dead and X.Org had taken over the world, with the same code base but a more traditional license. I held my breath until I read the actual document... -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
"walterbyrd" wrote: > Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog. the pyfound blog is the official PSF blog; it's linked from the PSF:s homepage: http://www.python.org/psf/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden wrote: > Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Is this an April fool's joke? > > > > > > Did you read the blog entry? > > > I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove > the blog entry just so's nobobdy's tempted to take it seriously. If a big corporation wants to take it seriously and pay 1.25, what's wrong with that? :) > > regards > Steve > -- > Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com > Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Is this an April fool's joke? > > > Did you read the blog entry? > I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove the blog entry just so's nobobdy's tempted to take it seriously. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a >>recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in >> >> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > > Good one Steve. > > I particularly liked the Comments section. > > :) > Yes, lots of people joined in the spirit of the original post - the comments were added by others. Thanks for pointing them out: I hadn't noticed, having been out all day at a Make Beer Free rally. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Grant Edwards a écrit : > On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a >>recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in >> >> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > > Good one Steve. > > I particularly liked the Comments section. > > :) > +42 And this pretty intersting link: http://www2.sqlonrails.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is this an April fool's joke? Did you read the blog entry? -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I will invent "TIDY at BOWL"... visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Is this an April fool's joke? Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
> > >Hmmm... after due consideration (and reading the announcmement >properly), I support this license change in full. > > > If I could read past the first paragraph do you think I would really hang onto this newsgroup asking stupid questions?! The personal harm caused readers of this announcement should entitle each reader to a free beer (or for those with bad hearts, a nitroglycerin pill) at the expense of the perpetrator - though I imagine the PSF team of lawyers retained for license enforcement may take up the case on his side - money talks. - As an aside, I should mention that I have countered the announced licensing change with a patent application for the use of 3, 4, or 5 spaces as an indent for purposes of establishing a code block. I have written a tidy little program that will count indent spaces in all Python programs and expect to negotiate royalty settlements on a per space basis ($.0001 per space proposed). Anyone who prefers to avoid a call from my legal team can simply send me their source code for royalty calculation, and provide a credit card or bank account number. Thanks. EP -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Fuzzyman wrote: > From the site: "Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First Object-Oriented License" string = "Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First Object-Oriented License" for letter in string: if ord(letter) in range(65,91): print(letter), -- mph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
That isn't in the published 2.5 License. http://docs.python.org/dev/ref/node110.html Thanks for the scare.. ~r -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think > it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, > reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from > contributing to the code base. > > If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do > something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of > Python as we know it. > > regards > Steve Absolutely agree. This is a disaster. Specifying the use of $US will shut out our friends who use quatloos or gold pressed latinum for currency. Bad idea. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
On 2006-04-01, Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (F) wrote: > >>F> Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use >>F> of a derivative work based on the Python source code ? > >>F> Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard >>F> CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered. >>F> Right ? > > As I understand it, distributing Python is also covered. For a commercial > vendor $1.25 is peanuts, but for the PSA it is a significant amount (think > about all the Mac OSX copies if Apple decides to switch to 2.5). I just found last night that my spankin' new Thinkpad came with Python 2.2 pre-installed underneath an "IBMTOOLS" directory on the C: drive. Don't let Lenovo slide by without paying... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'll take ROAST BEEF at if you're out of LAMB!! visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html Good one Steve. I particularly liked the Comments section. :) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I represent a at sardine!! visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Look at the date. Worry about this if it is still around tomarrow -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to > the toy CPU :-) I think if PSF is going to support porting of Python to "toy" CPUs then the Digi-Comp should be the first target. This will breathe new life into these toys which for years have been relegated to the backs of closets and dusty attics. Having a modern programming language available will bring them out of the dark ages of counters and logic tables and make them useful for such purposes as web servers and biological research. And for the developers or others who need to target this platform, it is again in production. http://paperforest.blogspot.com/2006/02/digi-comp-1.html Kent -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Ivan Herman>I would certainly look at *all details* of the announcement,< Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to the toy CPU :-) (But making strings mutable sounds too much strange). Bye and thank you, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
I would certainly look at *all details* of the announcement, including the second line from the top which gives the date:-) Ivan Caleb Hattingh wrote: > WAIT- > > Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke? > > I have a nasty feeling about this :)) > > C > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
> "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (F) wrote: >F> Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use >F> of a derivative work based on the Python source code ? >F> Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard >F> CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered. >F> Right ? As I understand it, distributing Python is also covered. For a commercial vendor $1.25 is peanuts, but for the PSA it is a significant amount (think about all the Mac OSX copies if Apple decides to switch to 2.5). -- Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4] Private email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
WAIT- Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke? I have a nasty feeling about this :)) C -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve I agree with you. If my vote means anything, I vote against it. >> The Board realises that this change will be >> contentious. There are many advantages >> to making it, however, which we feel will >> benefit the Python community at large >> and the PSF membership in particular. >> Users who wish to make commercial >> use of Python on a royalty-free basis >> are encouraged to continue using Python 2.4, >> whose licensing conditions remain the same. I guess what would happen is that many people will sit on 2.4 for a lot longer than expected, or widespread interest in other implementations (fork?) suddenly take off ;) I would pretty much have to remain with 2.4 at work - we have a draconian IT software management policy that would prevent me getting approval for a commercial licence for python for at least the better part of a year, and this cycle would be repeated for every upgrade (the hold-ups involve budgets, cost-centres and red tape).This is why I use as much free software as possible. Regards Caleb -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Fuzzyman wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > > > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > > > I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think > > it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, > > reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from > > contributing to the code base. > > > > If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do > > something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of > > Python as we know it. > > > > Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use > of a derivative work based on the Python source code ? > > Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard > CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered. > Right ? > > Does this cover commercial applications that embed the Python > interpreter ? (Looks like it will) > Hmmm... after due consideration (and reading the announcmement properly), I support this license change in full. Nice one Steve. Fuzzy > All the best, > > Fuzzyman > http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml > > > regards > > Steve > > -- > > Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > > Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com > > Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think > it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, > reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from > contributing to the code base. > > If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do > something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of > Python as we know it. > Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use of a derivative work based on the Python source code ? Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered. Right ? Does this cover commercial applications that embed the Python interpreter ? (Looks like it will) All the best, Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml > regards > Steve > -- > Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com > Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof ooutright open source llicenssing? Shane -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
Steve Holden wrote: > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in > >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html > > I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think > it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, > reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from > contributing to the code base. > > If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do > something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of > Python as we know it. > > regards > Steve > -- > Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 > Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com > Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com I'm +1 on the new license because I want to spend good money for good products. My own take is more close to Xah Lees: lets be ultimately responsible and found an insurance for all kind of damages related to Python script usages. Part of the money the PSF earns for insurance fees could be donated to a charitable foundation that cares for indian children that suffer from snake bites. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
I say good riddence. Python's success has always been on its merits as an open source application platform. Corprate usage has always been relatively insignificant, and I suspect that many companies are overrepresenting the level of dependance they have on python in an attempt to steer their competitors into just this kind of open source license trap. I am all for this change. It is about time that free as in beer became a double entendre for python. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change
As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive, reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from contributing to the code base. If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of Python as we know it. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Licensing question
Hi, I've got a question about your python license. For the (lgpl'd) kdewin32 - layer (some unix functions for kdelibs4/win32) I need a mmap implementation. Can I use your code within kdewin32-lib? I don't think that the resulting code will contain a lot of similarities with your code (apart from the calls to CreateFileMapping/MapViewOfFile) but it would be nice to see what problems you had so we don't need to investigate them once more... Thx, Christian -- Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*! "Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Xah Lee wrote: His usual clap trap. ___ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do | / O O\__ NOT | / \ feed the| / \ \ trolls | / _\ \ __| /|\\ \ || / | | | |\/ || / \|_|_|/ \__|| / / \|| || / | | /|| --| | | |// | --| * _| |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // |/ * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c -- Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member . * * . * .* . . * . .* President, * . . /\ ( . . * Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * . .*. / * \ . . . /* o \ . Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638* '''||''' . URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ** -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's > software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not > liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to > change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance. > However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of > email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have > problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a > responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the > software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the > email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE > that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we > will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although > this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe > minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability > assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting". This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language (the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming language). So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject programming language not formally specified, and programs provided without the sources. We can do better on the programming language formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't know what we can do more than GPL or BSD... Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take _responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else. When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right application of the operation. Let the users be responsible! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation Xah Lee, 2005-07 Dear Programers, I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its community. when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by the free software community, because in a way responsibility is implicitly a antithesis against the free software community. I have high respect for the Free Software Foundation, even though i do not believe their tenet and dedication that ALL software MUST be “Free”. Nevertheless, i respect its founder Richard Stallman and the community on the whole. I think it is a very good group in a capitalistic software environment, as i'm also a strong advocate and believer in the goodness of laissez-faire system. So, as i was thinking that a movement towards Responsible Software Licensing may be opposed by the free software community in general, in principle and in practice. In principle because FSF's ethics focuses on the goodness of individuals, as opposed to some forced regulations such as licenses and contracts. In practice because most people in the free software camp are there because they are poor students and are totally ignorant of sociology, economics, business, law. As a class of the young, they are OpenSourcing fanatics for the thiefing and gratis and noise-making parts. In a commpercial software, where money are paid to acquire, it is reasonable to demand workability from the sold goods. However, in Free Software, almost always it is never a commercial item (i.e. practically it is always free of charge), therefore demanding that the software hold some responsibility for its consumers may seem inappropriate. We cannot stipulate warranties and insurances from gifts. (Nor can we, for some conceived ethics, to force some behavior by law, as history shows us that is not going to work well.) However, i think the free software community can in fact advocate responsible software licensing, and be a pioneer in this movement. As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance. However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. The Free Software Foundation's GNU project has been a pioneer in many aspects. It is a pioneer in the concept of Free Software with its GPL license, which is the main force behind the success and ubiquity of Linux and a massive collection of freely available software and components. It in fact has made a major impact in society, even beyond the realm of software industry. (for instance, the massive grass-roots online info-encyclopedia Wikipedia.org is a indirect consequence FSF and GPL) Free Software community also has done pioneering leads in software technology. For example, its emacs text editor, is a all-encompassing, self-documented, self-sustaining software, and a quality work at that. It embodies the LISP programing language, and in fact emacs is mainly responsible for spreading the quality concepts that is functional programing to most industrial programers. The GNU C Compiler (now GNU Compiler Collection), is critical in starting Linux and a massive collection of software in the unix industry. This is why i think Free Software Foundation can be a leader towards responsible software licensing. There are a huge number of Free Software followers. Many of us also publish our programs, big or small. By starting with a very small, nominal statement in the license, we can spread the attitude of responsible software. Gradually, this practice can spread to commercial software, and to such a degree of competing offers of liabilities and guarantees as we have in for example USA's consumer products. Please think about this. If you agree, please spread the idea. -- This post is archived at: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license_FSF.html Xah [EMAIL PROTECTED] ∑ http://xahlee.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:05:59 GMT, Roedy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly >quoted someone who said : > >>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to >>reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the >>liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the >>law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? > >It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an >accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it >catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. You'ld have to prove the fuel pump caused your accident wouldn't you? I'm reversed when it comes to engineering. I always assume defects when buss loads of people are killed. If software ever guards lives that isin't certified then its a manufacturing defect. That is imbedded software though. Not the for public consumption. I know that fly-by-wire military software has 100 levels of precaution. Hey but its a 7 million dollar plane and a 700 billion dollar budget. The written requirements for a single design is a book 5 inches thick. Ever see that for Joe bullshit software designer? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to >reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the >liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the >law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Reliable software [was Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing]
robic0 wrote about software liabilities: > If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, > then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to > reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the > liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the > law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? This question is hardly unique to software. All manufacturers and suppliers have to deal with the question of what is covered by warranty. But it is possible to code defensively. For instance, instead of writing directly to the user's file, you should write to a temporary file, then when the write is complete, you rename the temp file to the "real" file. On some OSes that can be an atomic operation, but even if it is not, your danger zone where a power failure can cause the user to lose data is strongly reduced. As a general rule, closed source software suppliers have a terrible reputation for responding to bug reports quickly and in good faith. It sometimes seems that the bigger and more successful the software supplier is, the more likely they are to sit on bug reports, doing nothing to fix them, and threaten to sue if you disclose -- all the more so if it is a security exploit. Follow-ups to comp.lang.python please. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:47:29 +0100, "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Xah Lee wrote: > >Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not >withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what >the disclaimer says. Pretty big damned statement there boy! As about a coverall generalization for all faults if I ever heard! > The law is the leading authority and not some >Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:58 +, Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >robic0 wrote: > >> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of >> physocopic drugs! > >He could be schizophrenic. > >Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene >Ray's Timecube: >http://www.timecube.com/ > >His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the >wikipedia: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray > >And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a >stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood", >why not play the game of the theory over at: >http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html what would Einstien do? take a trip on a beam of light -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote: > > The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility > could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure > I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. > Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is still primary liable for his own action unless he's deliberately been mislead without any possibility to know that, think in terms of trojans and viruses. So no suing over spilling hot coffee here unless the container it's carried in is faulty -- mph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > Xah Lee wrote: > > Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not > withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what > the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some > Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. Actually most EULAs are unauthoritative in both the USA and (parts of) the EU, because the customer usually doesn't know or sign the EULA before he buys the software. At least that's what I heard. The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. -- If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know. Louis Armstrong -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Xah Lee wrote: Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. -- mph -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Responsible Software Licensing
>>
I worship you, Xah.
--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)..(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Roedy Green wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted > someone who said : > >>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't >>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. > > are you bawling out robico or Xah? Does it really matter? -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't >even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. are you bawling out robico or Xah? Attributions are necessary for personal attacks. -- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > physocopic drugs! > Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. Matt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote: > Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of > physocopic drugs! He could be schizophrenic. Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene Ray's Timecube: http://www.timecube.com/ His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood", why not play the game of the theory over at: http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:10 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >robic0 wrote: >> Xah Lee wrote: >>> >>> >> >> > >So, at last they found one another. :( Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
robic0 wrote: > Xah Lee wrote: >> >> > > So, at last they found one another. :( -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Responsible Software Licensing > >Xah Lee, 200307 > >Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting Soft, like your head >property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying it costs to dup, dup >money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the wrong, you can dup your bullshit evrywhere for free >invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that you don't know what a computer is >precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods i bid a gigabuck for that gigabyte >in essentially infinite quantity. in a for() loop maybe > >All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, get a calculator, bad is negative and subtracts, not multiply >just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email virus and email or virus in email? >spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a "software bads" is like asian bads, dumber than dog shit >unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is where is whats on the morons mind anyway Zah? >your code?, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is when is mentality signified, do a cat scan do any good? >judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, per line or content? if the dude is dumb does his software get demoted >every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the right, the 9 inch dicked moron with the genious iq, and very tall.. >net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their free... suck my 9 inch dick, and quite proud >contributions to the world. These digital bads, including well, a big dick is a gods gift to women (or did u mean digitial dick) >irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses every program i ever met was irresponsible and never wore condoms (i never fucked with them so "i" don't know) >until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST yup, down south we call them the "John Henry", definetly the standard >POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are nah, superior "dick size" doesen't mean mind >C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost oh, u name dropper your so intelligent >anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of a "virus" is a physical ailment, not a mind doodoo >irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the i never knew a responsible software, can u name one? they don't talk to me, maybe cause i just curse them out.. hahahaaa >creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The i think you mean monkey jakkingoff, which usually leads to bad thinking, i mean really man step away from the gun and put your hands in the air... >scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus you mean surgically, i never saw one "put" in there. anybody seen this happen? >creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. omg, bring the jews into into it. > >Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law so shit flows downhill eh... >that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for keep the software bads to yourself (whatever that is) >garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty nothin wrong with garbage, its a 3 billion dolla industry >of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i can we leave good/bad up got god, or at least anybody with a brain? >think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; i think toilet paper helps alot better, edu is a mind fuk divorced from reality ... like u >I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then awareness comes when you "find" your navel >irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's >opinion. i never knew a "mind" software that considered itself irresponsible > >The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that is the epa >irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with can't we all agree "software" is not people ... >responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be can't we all agree licenses were made for marriages and dog tags .. >liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's your software killed my country, i want 1 trillion in damages >software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the i wish marriage license did >software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any software is sold. i think
Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Responsible Software Licensing Xah Lee, 200307 Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods in essentially infinite quantity. All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is your code?”, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their “contributions” to the world. These digital bads, including irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's opinion. The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, eXtreme Programing, “Universal” Modeling Language...) will automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's stipulation. In our already established infrastructure of software and industry practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.) Please spread this idea. This post is archived at http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html Xah [EMAIL PROTECTED] ∑ http://xahlee.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing and Other Questions
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:35:58 +0300, Christos Georgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Your method is/will_not be free (as in beer), as hinted in >http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/home/email/registry/Form-Sender01.htm >. *That* is a drawback similar to the licensing of the Microsoft's >Sender/Caller-ID scheme. Why not support open, free standards? These are fees for services, not license fees. I don't know how you could miss that. The code is offered under the Python licence, which is the most unrestrictive of any license I know about. One of my goals is to provide an open-source version of what big companies are now paying millions for - spam appliances with proprietary methods. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:20:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: >[David, in an earlier email] >> reject. 15% will get an immediate accept without filtering, because >> the sender is authenticated and has a good reputation. Eventually, >> all reputable senders will join the 15%, and the 5% will shrink to >> where we can ignore it. > >Two questions you seem to be implicitly assuming particular answers >to: Is widespread authentication a good thing? Does it solve any >problem not solved by Bayesian filtering plus good mail client >support? My first reaction is to answer "no" to both questions, so to >regard your effort as harmful. Might be interesting to hear why you >think it's a good thing, though. I really didn't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of filtering vs authentication. I worry this will be a long discussion, with no satisfactory conclusion, so I suggest we move these topics to one of the email security forums. My conclusion, after participating in many such discussions, is that both filtering and authentication are necessary tools, and a complete system should have both. -- Dave -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Harlin Seritt wrote: If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or BSD. If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame, do GPL. You're kidding, right? How does the BSD license possibly offer more protection for a commercial program than the GPL does? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Leif K-Brooks wrote: Harlin Seritt wrote: If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or BSD. If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame, do GPL. You're kidding, right? How does the BSD license possibly offer more protection for a commercial program than the GPL does? The BSD license offers less protection than the GPL. But it gives more rights to the buyer of the software, so it might be an easier sell. Daniel -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
JanC wrote: This is difficult to do right, if you have to consider all the laws in different countries... Right. So he points out that his explanations are for US copyright law only, and then that legislation even in different US states, or perhaps even in districts, might be different. Therefore, a license should state what jurisdiction it applies to. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Martin v. Löwis schreef: > Larry argues that a license should be legally meaningful, and > legally clear - or else there is little point in formulating > a license in the first place. This is difficult to do right, if you have to consider all the laws in different countries... -- JanC "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Ville Vainio wrote: Daniel> Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the Daniel> BSD license, or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning Daniel> towards the BSD since it fits on the screen... Isn't MIT license even shorter and simpler? A while ago some Debian guys were speculating whether even BSD license is "free enough" to include in Debian... I encourage anybody to read Larry Rosen's book on this matter, http://www.phptr.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0131487876&rl=1 Larry describes what he likes and dislikes about each of the licenses from a legal point of view - giving insights you cannot possibly get without law school. For example, the BSD license reads "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: [...]" Compare this to the rights that a copyright holder has, e.g. from http://www.whatiscopyright.org/ "exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly." Strictly speaking, the BSD license gives non of these rights to the licensee. The right to redistribute is probably *meant* to include the right to reproduce - or is it meant to allow distribution only the very copy that you received yourself (so you have no copy after distribution). The right to use is not one that copyright law has control over, so what does it mean that the license gives you that right? (*) What about the right to prepare derivative works? Most likely, the license is *meant* to give this right also, since you are permitted to redistribute modifications (but then, perhaps only modifications of the original author?). And so on. Larry argues that a license should be legally meaningful, and legally clear - or else there is little point in formulating a license in the first place. If the license is formulated ambiguously, in the case of doubt, courts will have to interpret them. While courts are capable of producing such an interpretation, they sometimes do so in a surprising manner (*). I've been picking on the BSD license because I can remember the complaints Larry has about its text. Regards, Martin (*) If you are curious: Larry argues that, while the permission to use is meaningless in copyright law, it is meaningful in patent law. To use something, you need a license for all patents that would otherwise prevent you from using it. So the permission to use *could* be interpreted to be a patent license. However, most likely, the authors of the license did not intend it to be a patent license - so what the right to use is remains unclear, until courts rule on this aspect. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
When you ask an opinion, you can expect a long thread list... even if it's something inane like "What kind of license should I use?"... hacker/geeks/freaks/wannabes are only too happy to issue an opinion -- warranted or otherwise... Regards, Harlin Seritt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or BSD. If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame, do GPL. :-) Regards, Harlin Seritt -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
> "Daniel" == Daniel Keep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the Daniel> BSD license, or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning Daniel> towards the BSD since it fits on the screen... Isn't MIT license even shorter and simpler? A while ago some Debian guys were speculating whether even BSD license is "free enough" to include in Debian... -- Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Wow. That was fast. PHP forums eat your heart out :P Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the BSD license, or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning towards the BSD since it fits on the screen... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Licensing Python code under the Python license
Daniel Keep wrote: I'm currently working on a Python program, and was wondering if it's possible to license the program, some associated tools, and a few other libraries I've written under the Python license. I had a look at the new PSF Python license on the list of OSI-approved licenses, but it makes numerous direct mentions of Python and the PSF. Is there any acceptable way to simply say that a particular source file is under the PSF license (like you can w/ the GPL/LGPL), and would it even apply? Or am I just on the completely wrong track, and should I look elsewhere? :P Please don't. Because it does include proper names that you would have to replace (and not in a properly templated fashion like some other public licenses), it just becomes awkward because you can't really call it "the PSF license" anymore. If you want a similar license, please consider the following licenses instead: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
