PythonLabs moves to Digital Creations

snottrue writes "This just in from comp.lang.python - the PythonLabs team is moving to Digital Creations (the Zope people)." Van Rossum's message is informative.

Comments

Pythons BDFL doesnt fall for weak jedi mind tricks

[jherber]

"""No -- DC is not interested in branding or monetizing Python, so there will be no pressure for marketing gimmicks like that. Python will remain Python, soon to be owned py the Python Software Foundation (more about that idea another time).""" - Guido van Rosssum

http://x71.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=686840642 .1&mhitnum=10&CONTEXT=972744081.2060845082

this is a very good move in my opinion. the designers and implementors of the langauge will be couped up with one of their biggest customers and users. only good things can come from all the cross pollination. the zope gurus will no doubt influence python's future in the area of backend server capability.

digicool's zope team also teamed up with mozilla (http://www.zope.org/Products/ZopeStudio) to develop a new managment front end that runs using mozilla's new widgets. this experience may come in handy as the python team decides the fate of the default GUI that ships with the core python release, given that the future of tcl is shady (http://www.ajubasolutions.com/company/whatsnew.ht ml) from a support standpoint, as well as that many are unhappy with inelegant solution of going through another tcl to get to tk.

Kudos to GvR for putting the protection of the python and the python community first.

jherber

Python needs a CPAN

[costas]

When I first heard of Python, I thought it was a joke; I mean, whitespace-sensitive? what is this Fortran? However, it just so happened that my company was looking for a RAD language we could use on Unix and NT. So, I started using Python as a punchline as in "Be careful, or I am gonna write this in Python". After using that joke too many times, I actually started looking into the language. Python kicks ass. It's a RAD Java, a clean Perl, a consistent PHP. So, I am now this Python evangelist.

However, Python is severely lacking in the modules dept: Don't get me wrong the distro libraries are great, but occasionally you need a quick hack that you *know* someone else has already written. We need a CPAN for Python. Starship and the Vaults of Parnassus are OK, but they're nothing more than an index, without organization or consistency.

I hope Digital Creations actually tries something like that...

Re:Python needs a CPAN

[costas]

Agreed; Python doesn't need as much standardization for modules as Perl :-)... And the distutils package is indeed a great idea, ...BUT: you still have to find that module/distro in order to install it.

I am thinking more of a site (even a Zope-powered one :-) where you can search not only the description of the code, or browse through an index but actually search through the doc-strings as well --the self-documenting functionality is there, why not use it?

And a final peeve: I am indeed a Python evangelist now, but when my colleagues ask me if there is stuff out there for Python and where to get them, I really don't want to send them to Starship or Parnassus: neither one looks well-organized or proffessionally made. I know that has very little to do with their usefulness (well, the organized part does :-) or the quality of their contents, but unfortunately that's how people judge...

Aargh!

[awx]

I just had a heart attack when I read it:

PythonLabs is moving to Digital Convergence

d'oh.
awx

Digital Creations helped solve the license problem

[Bruce Perens]

BeOpen were not the only people working on resolving the licensing problem. In all I think I put in a few days on the Python licensing issue, speaking with the CNRI person via email, phone, and an in-person meeting. I did it at the request of Digital Creations. DC's investor had changed the Zope license OSD at my request, so he was calling in the favor by asking me to work on another license that concerned them.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Open Source

[Bruce Perens]

Actually, it's not at all clear that even the first license requires you to execute it. And it's not clear that the first license in this case is requiring you to execute the second. You don't have to sign it or indicate your compliance in any way. That's what I was getting at when I wrote that rule into the OSD - you shouldn't have to mail in a signed document to use a piece of Open Source software.

However, I do see the language about the grant in the PHP license, and the second license for Zend, to be pretty messy. They didn't have to word it that way to get the job done, they could simply have built two compatible licenses for the two different pieces.

In your place, I'd have them clean up the license language.

Bruce

Re:Open Source

[Russ Nelson]

Not only that, but PHP requires execution of a separate license. We may change the OSD to allow one open source license to require you to execute another open source license. It's silly not to (but we haven't yet made that decision).
-russ

Finally some good news!

[Enigma2175]

It is a very good thing that Python development is moving to another company. BeOpen wanted to take total control of the language and release it under a different license. Hopefully Digital Creations will be more open-minded on this matter (the article indicates they will be). Python is a valuable resource to the community and I would hate to see it drop by the wayside because of money-minded corporations.


Enigma

Re:Python 3.0 release imminent?

[g_mcbay]

nah, its going to be Python 7.0, so it can compete with Visual C++ 7.0, VB 7.0 and be ahead of Perl 6 !!!!

The magic is in the version numbers!!

Good

[Fizgig]

I was never quite sure what BeOpen actually planned on doing with Python. At least Digital Creations' entire livlihood depends on Python continuing to exist, and they're already a successful open source company. I thought those of us who love Python had it bad with all the moving around and the uncertainty behind licensing and the language's future (I imagine Guido et al have been having a rougher time at it than I have!), but I just saw on the front page of Linux Weekly News the current TCL plight. So I guess we could have it worse.

BeOpen was not the license problem

[Adam J. Richter]

The obstruction was not at BeOpen, it was at CNRI.

A particular person who remained at CNRI after the Python guys went to BeOpen claimed that all the work done during the CNRI days was not implicitly under the original CWI terms, but rather was copyright CNRI and CNRI had yet to give anyone permission to do anything. That party wrote new copying conditions and, after a great deal of work by BeOpen, backed down to something that is probably GPL compatible, but muddied. (The new CNRI copying conditions include the additional restriction beyond the GPL's that "This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects by thelaw of the State of Virginia, excluding conflict of law provisions." I think the issue is basically over which part of the total list of copying permissions is referred to by "This License Agreement", but I'm not a lawyer.)

Whether or not it was their plan, BeOpen made a huge sacrafice in human resources to focus on defusing the Python license bomb. We could very easily have reverted to situation where all the work done during the CNRI years was under a cloud of legal threats. BeOpen deserves our deep gratitude for this.

Also, CNRI could have been worse about this, so I would appreciate our not trashing them either.