[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Our application doesn't work with Debian packaged Python]

2001-01-16 Thread Neil Schemenauer
The word from the BDFL himself: - Forwarded message from Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:16:48 -0500 From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Our application doesn't work with Debian packaged Python] > This

Re: Python license and GPL programs

2001-01-16 Thread Neil Schemenauer
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:44:47PM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote: > If you listen to CNRI or BeOpen's lawyers (but not Eben Moglen > & the FSF), you're fine. Guido has told me that something has been worked out with the FSF now. Hopefully this stupid issue can be put to rest and we can all get on

Re: Python license and GPL programs

2001-01-16 Thread Neil Schemenauer
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am distributing Python programs under the GPL. So is this sentence > above telling me that all users are not allowed to use my GPLed programs > with Python 2.0?? What about previous versions? IANAL, but: This only causes a pro

Re: Proposal: Reorganizing Python for Python2 (and fixes for the previous proposal)

2001-01-16 Thread Bruce Sass
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:32:49PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:25:44 -0800, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it possible for a program to use deprecated 1.5 things and > > > not work with 2.0? > > Possible, but extre

Re: Our application doesn't work with Debian packaged Python

2001-01-16 Thread Jon Nelson
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:44:48AM +0200, Danie Roux wrote: > [snip] > | > | I then went and look at the source rpm. They have this patch in there: > | > | --- Python-1.5.2/Python/importdl.c.global Sat Jul 17 16:52:26 1999 > | +++ Python-1.5.2/Python/importdl.c Sat Jul 17 16:53:19 1999 > | @@

Re: Our application doesn't work with Debian packaged Python

2001-01-16 Thread D-Man
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:44:48AM +0200, Danie Roux wrote: [snip] | | I then went and look at the source rpm. They have this patch in there: | | --- Python-1.5.2/Python/importdl.c.global Sat Jul 17 16:52:26 1999 | +++ Python-1.5.2/Python/importdl.cSat Jul 17 16:53:19 1999 | @@ -441,13 +44

Re: Python license and GPL programs

2001-01-16 Thread Peter Eckersley
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:56:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tuesday 16 January 2001, at 11 h 45, the keyboard of Peter Eckersley > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > clause requiring legal disputes to be settled under the jurisdiction of the > > State of Virginia, USA, > > I mainta

Our application doesn't work with Debian packaged Python

2001-01-16 Thread Danie Roux
Good they all, Our program is an archiver for gnome that uses gnome-python with one widget written in C. I converted our program to autoconf and automake so anyone can (and please do!) compile it and see what I mean. Everything compiles fine. But when it runs it just throws a weird exception. T

Re: Python license and GPL programs

2001-01-16 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tuesday 16 January 2001, at 11 h 45, the keyboard of Peter Eckersley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > clause requiring legal disputes to be settled under the jurisdiction of the > State of Virginia, USA, I maintain a Python program, which is GPL. I live in France and I'll never accept such a cl

Re: Python license and GPL programs

2001-01-16 Thread Peter Eckersley
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > By this reasoning, for Python 2.0, you'd also have to add a BeOpen & > California clause. And god knows what jurisdiction 2.1 will be under > (I assume it will be owned by the PSF). > Argh, you're right. Hopefully any future licenses won't includ