Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Feb 06, 2016, at 04:38 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >Right, sure. The technical problems are still there. Although I'm >fairly confident that Debian's binaries would correspond to Debian's >source - but honestly, if I'm looking for sources for anything other >than the kernel, I probably want to

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Of course if *you* want to you can GPL Python (I think that's now > possible, at one time there was a issue with the CNRI license IIRC), > and then licensees of *your* distribution (but not you!) are required > to

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

Chris Angelico writes: > And even the GPL doesn't require you to distribute the source along > with every copy of the binary. As long as the source is *available*, > it's acceptable to distribute just the binary for convenience. True (and it would apply to frozen Python as long as the source

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > However, the technical problem remains. For example, you mention > Debian. While Debian keeps its source and binary packages very close > to "in sync" on the server, there are several gotchas. For example, >

[Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

Executive summary: There is no licensing issue because Python isn't copyleft. Stick to the pragmatic *technical* issue of how to reliably provide corresponding source to those who want to look at that source (just because that's how we do things in Python). Emile van Sebille writes: > Except