Slashdot Mirror
Python Now GPL compatible
Shane Hathaway writes: "I'm sure the slashdot readership will be happy to learn that
Python is now compatible with the GPL. It's a bugfix
for Python 2.0 but a similar release is planned for Python 2.1."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
In case the author gets hit by a bus for example. The end users are protected somewhat by fact of the code being available, and modifications being legally possible. For example IPF is under a license where you must get Darren Reed's approval to maky source code modifications. If he dies tommorow and his estate decides to sell IPF to a company all the IPF users may be up the creek without a paddle.
Yes, but it also enables some of the more powerful features of the language - e.g. "tagging" an object with your own variables. YMMV.
You got it! GPL is just as valid a license as a Microsoft license. Why should we "like" a Microsoft license versus a GPL license? Well, first off, the Microsoft license requires that we give Microsoft many rights and monies.
The GPL does not.
Plus, the GPL license prohibits someone like Microsoft from stealing code and making it part of their product. Clearly, the Microsoft license is very similar in this regard.
So hurray for Python, by permitting me to look and modify their code, but for not having a requirement to hand of rights and cash to Dr. Gates.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes you a better person. It's not like you throw out your TV and suddenly lose two hundred pounds and have an urge to talk about the situation in the mideast. Non-ownership of a TV is typically a hallmark of a particular breed of person, but that doesn't imply a causality. Saying it does is extremely close to post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The only thing not owning a TV really assures is that you rank close to last when people are trying to decide whose house they should go to for movie night. Unless you own a projector, but you get the idea.
I myself don't own a TV, but like many other geeks here, the internet is my substitute. I also have an ASUS video card w/ video in, so I can play console-based games when frustrated with coding.
Am I a better person than I would be without a TV? That's hard to say. I can say with conviction that it makes relating to my peers difficult:
Them: "Hey, did you catch South Park last night?!"
Me: "Uhm, no, I don't own a TV."
Them: "Oh, that's right. I'm sorry."
Me: "I don't have cable either."
Them: "Sorry."
Mostly they think I'm poor. Come to think of it, I am poor. wtf.
Please explain to me why everything has to be "GPL-compatible"? Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus to invade? Or is this another example of Slashdot selfishness; "gimme gimme gimme!"
Personally I'm a little tired of hearing about people bashing RMS & GNU & GPL without realizing the purpose and ideals behind it all.
Go read some GNU! GNU is about changing society, not just sourcecode, that is opensource.
Python is not and never will be released under the GPL. It has always been the intention that you can take Python and do whatever you want with it, including modifying it and sticking it in your closed, proprietary, $$$ system. You can also use it for your open source system, or anything in between. The new license changes none of that.
What has changed with the 2.0.1 license is the ability to legally link Python with other totally unrelated GPL-covered software. For example, you cannot legally distribute a binary of Python 2.0 linked with the GNU readline library. That sucks. But now it is legal to link Python 2.0.1 with readline and distribute that binary. That rocks.
The use of BSD stack in Windows and the existence of several proprietary versions of X and Apache are just some examples of freedom lost by users because of the license used.
Well, actually, that's the thing. It's tough to claim that "users" are all programmers.
Personally, i'm much more interested in seeing the BSD stack used by Windows than in forcing MS to reinvent the wheel. The more reimplimentations there are, the more opportunities for bugs and exploits.
If the first, and for some time, the only license that guarantees that users will have freedom to use, adapt, copy and redistribute, any free software license should be compatible with it, right ?
My software is free because it can be used by anyone for anything. Python's license was free, but allowed some additional protection for the corporate lawyers (no additional freedom, mind you, just additional "can't blame us"-ness).
I don't have a problem with RMS having principles and not betraying them. I do have a problem with pressure being put on an already free product to conform to an ideal that the author of that product doesn't share.
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I'm sure there are more examples, but the NeXT/gcc one is the most famous.
A story about Monty Python and then the Python language on the same day? I know you can never have enough python of any sort, but lets save any more of them for tommorow ok?
#!/usr/local/bin/python-1.5.2
for some scripts and
#!/usr/local/bin/python-2.1
for others than maybe this could work if the different versions of python are treated like differnt languages that just happen to resemble eachother and have thier own sets of extentions and libs etc that each interpreter knows how to handle (and of course, the sym link to your "default" python interpreter)
i realize that you can make wrappers that would create the proper environment, but thats not exactly a portable solution. the way it is now looks like they want you to keep re writing your old code.
what you have on your red hat box would be fine if thats how python was distributed, it kinda emulates what i was blabbering about above. but when someone using python on another platform who only has 2.1 and mabe some extentions gives you a bunch of scripts, the least youll have to do is s/python/python2/ in the first line. maybe thats all it takes. ill have to play with it.
i did just look on a another machine that only has python 2.1 installed. it did install a binary called python2.1. theres still the question of extentions written in python and thier compatibility with newer releases, have to look at that too.
this may seem bitchy or whatever but i really dont want to spend my time learning a new language and writing a buch of stuff and then get bitten by something chaging incompatibly to where i end up having to write different version for certain platforms. at least not more than changes that can themselves be easily scripted...
There is one important point that noone seems to have mentioned yet. While there may be a lot of arguments about the merrits of different licenses, it is very desireable for different free software packages to have compatible licenses.
If we restrict ourselves to the point of view of an end user of software, and only consider the static availability of software at a time, this might seem unimportant. However, from a broader perspective, this becomes very relevant.
As an example, it is now possible to embed Python as a scripting language into any GPL'ed application. And we can pull the regexp code out of Python and use it in gawk (or vice versa).
Stephan
I like Ruby's Smalltalk-like semantics, but I must admit I'm afraid of its Perl-like syntax. Why, oh why, did he choose the most random syntax for what would otherwise be an elegant language?
Legal documents are all about being anal. The law is all about being anal. Guido doesn't care about this -- so be it. But it's because some people do care about this that the GPL exists and serves a real purpose in the world. Otherwise the GPL would just be so many words.
hawk, fearful of the borg
>lead to hell" philosophy, but
*shrug* It's your soul . . .
:)
hawk
>toys to play with, including you. You play with other people's toys,
>but when someone reaches for one of your toys you slap their hand and
>scream, "That's my toy!"
OK, but this is also a fair description of the GPL and an assortment of
free licenses.
There seems to be an assumption in these arguments that anyone using
other code takes a full GPL project and modifies it to do something
else--in which case the argment makes sense that the whole thing should
carry the GPL. Or that the GPL project uses a tad of code from software
under a free license. IT doesn't consider the other direction--that
a massive free project wants to use a tad of GPL code, but cannot do
so under its own license.
hawk
hawk
I'm sorry...I guess I just have to get out of the mindset that the GPL is "THE Open source license"... gotta remember the BSD license, etc. That in mind, what was Python before now?- --
-------------------------------------------
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
http://propheteer.org
The primary reason that anyone cared about making Python's license GPL compatible is due to the fact that Python is a very popular embedded language. In fact, that's one of Python's major strengths. Before version 1.6 came out (with a GPL incompatible license) a whole pile of GPLed programs had already adopted Python as their embedded scripting language. However, with the new license they no longer could use the newer version of Python (because of the incompatible license). That meant that all of these projects were going to be stuck with version 1.5.2 of Python forever (several of them probably wished that they had followed the GNU standard and embedded guile instead).
Guido wanted to make sure that Python could still be embedded in GPLed software, and so the Python folks have been working really hard to sort the license stuff out.
As for why you would use the GPL as a license. Well, there are several reasons. Many free software hackers use the GPL for political reasons. They feel that the "freedom" that the GPL insures is worth the extra hassle. Other more pragmatic hackers use the GPL because it allows them to release the source code to their work and yet still maintain control of it. For example, it is becoming fairly common to release GPLed software under dual licenses. To people who want to use the source in Free Software the author shares the source under the GPL. However, if someone wants to use the same software in a commercial project then the author licenses the code to the individual or company under a commercial license. That way the hacker can make his software available to other free software hackers under a free license, but still charge commercial developers money for the same source.
It is important to note that Python is not releasing their source under the GPL. Their license is quite a bit more liberal than the GPL and allows the use of Python source in commercial closed source products. Their new license is simply GPL compatible, which means that GPL hackers will be able to upgrade.
That's good news for everyone.
I love Python. I thought the previous licences were more than adequate. I never saw the need for Python to be "GPL-compatible", nor do I think the GPL is a particularly good licence to begin with.
This isn't intended as a flame. I would like to know why many people in the community are so hung up on the GPL. How is it better than the Apache, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic or other licences? As we know, the GPL hasn't been challenged in court anyway, and it does appear to be unnecessarily wordy and extremely adverse to business. Instead of flaming me, please explain what is so good about the GPL. Thanks in advance!
When I read of events like this I can't stop but think this is analogous to a marketing pressure in the business world. "Look," the licensors might say, "those guys released their software as GPL; we must do it too!"
Take care,
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Why in God's name are you allowed to choose whatever restrictions you want on your proprietary software, no matter how restrictive, but I can't choose the GPL without drawing your flames?
Faced with an anonymous coward post, I had to go with the numbers and choose the reply with the greatest chance of being relevant. I apologize for completely misreading your particular perspective.
Anyway, if you are not a programmer, why do you hate the GPL so much, to the point of calling it a virus? It can't possibly affect your life.
If harassing tactics were used to force the Python team to change their license, then that is clearly wrong. But if the Python team voluntarily chooses a new license, then I think everyone else using their code is obligated to respect that decision.
As far as I can tell, a company is still perfectly free to release an open source app under a license other than the GPL. There is no law against it.
Conversely, there is no law against choosing to release your program under the GPL. However, there are laws against releasing viruses, and it sounded very strongly to me that the poster would support illegalizing the GPL "virus".
Unless you are suggesting that the Python developers were forced to change their license involuntarily, I see no reason why there is anything wrong with the Python developers choosing a new license for their code, on their own free will.
And I think the rest of us who use the Python software are obligated to follow the new license, whether that license is the GPL or a Microsoft EULA.
To get back to your original questions:
- Not everything has to be GPL compatible. In fact, there probably exists more GPL incompatible software, than GPL compatible software.
- A company is perfectly free to release software not under the GPL. In light of this point, your use of the words "virus" and "invade" is inappropriate.
No one forces you to use the GPL. But when other people like the Python developers choose to use the GPL (or any other license), please respect their licensing terms.The fundamental paradox of your position is, you cannot disregard GPL licensing terms without at the same time disregarding all other licensing terms. Both are based on the same premise: if you wanna use the code, you gotta follow the license.
So, let me get this straignt. Berating someone is a bad thing, unless you're doing the berating, right?
As for the "License? Who cares? Do what you like" attitude, I'm all for it, as long as you apply it consistently. If you disregard the GPL, then you must disregard proprietary licenses as well, and furthermore you cannot expect anyone to heed any licenses you may have on your own software.
And so I ask you: If you are writing proprietary applications, or allowing development of proprietary applications, then what right do you have to complain against the GPL, when your own proprietary program has a far more restrictive license?
Please let loose the strings on your own code, before you complain about strings other people choose to attach on their code. You're the one who is crying gimme gimme gimme.
Irrelevant, though; languages don't link to the interpreter, they're executed by it. Your Gnumeric spreadsheets don't need to be GPLed, and your Python programs don't have to fall under the Python license. Python isn't GPLed, but there is GPLed Python software, and also completely proprietary Python software.
Note that GvR does not work for CNRI any longer; he works for Digital Creations. He previously worked at CNRI, and when he and his team left, CNRI's management wanted to revise the license to suit their legal view of the world, leading to this morass.
I'd also recommend that you try Ruby. I think you could consider it the next generation after Perl and Python. Very clean, O-O language with regular expressions and closures. I wrote in Python for a while, including Zope, and ended up switching to Ruby. I'm using the Debian Ruby packages from "unstable", which work excellently.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Unless Jython changes its licence also, it is not yet GPL compatible - point 8 stipulates that the agreement is to be governed by, and interpreted in the state of Virginia, the very issue which stopped the CPython CNRI licence from being compatible.
Since class files are run together in one memory space, an incompatible code licence is an issue.
So distributing JPython is incompatible with other GPL Java code. But remember that if none of the other code is GPL, then this is not an issue. And if you are writing the other Java code, you can release your code under a licence compatible with both the old CNRI and GPL licences.
Oh and to clarify: just distributing GPL with non-GPL code isn't a problem. It's the 'running in the same memory space' issue which is. So if some of your Java code is run completely separately from the others, say client and server software, the two components can have incompatible licences.
Just to clarify another common misconception in this article, you are not forced to distribute your source code if you make mods to a GPLed program - only if you distribute the modified version.
--
the telephone rings / problem between screen and chair / thoughts of homocide
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Yes!
I wish people would read the articles before
commenting.
-Kevin
But the GPL basically says you must make the source available if you distribute binaries. This situation doesn't really apply to Python scripts, since there are no binaries.
You mean the part where Guido says:?
"I have, on the other hand, dealt with many companies who refuse to use GPL's software due to the restrictions it introduces, as well as the general lack of accountbility which is an integral part of most open-source licenses."
The lack of accountability? {boggle} Do the people at the many companies you've dealt with actually READ the licensing agreements on the commercial software they are paying for? Without naming names, pick any J. Random Licensing Agreement and you'll see words to the effect of "We promise nothing. We accept no responsibility. Don't be surprised if this software is utterly unfit for anything, including the task for which you are paying the license fee. Anything that happens is on your head. Now pay up, bitch."
At least when open/free software rejects accountability, it does so with a sense of "You get what you pay for." If I were paying a thousand bucks a head for {important software package critical to my business success} I'd be a little less forgiving of the "Don't call me" attitude.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
The only thing you have wrong is #1. The only people you have to provide source to are the people you provide binaries to. Even though Linus is the copyright holder, he doesn't get any rights to your version unless you give him the binaries.
You left out an important part of #2, though: You have to give the purchasers of the VCR the right to modify and redistribute the code (under the GPL), as well as simply obtaining it.
short version, from the FAQ:
"1.14. Are there copyright restrictions on the use of Python?
Hardly. You can do anything you want with the source, as long as you leave the copyrights in, and display those copyrights in any
documentation about Python that you produce. Also, don't use the author's institute's name in publicity without prior written
permission, and don't hold them responsible for anything (read the actual copyright for a precise legal wording).
In particular, if you honor the copyright rules, it's OK to use Python for commercial use, to sell copies of Python in source or binary
form, or to sell products that enhance Python or incorporate Python (or part of it) in some form. I would still like to know about all
commercial use of Python! "
P.S.: Thanks! I was wondering if I would get first post AND have the lowest user # in this thread, now I don't have to look any more!*grin*
Brian
urrrk....I thought I was replying to post #20...Oh, well, the answer fit anyway!*grin*
"That word...I don't think it means what you think it means..." *grin*
According to their license and their sourceforge site the Jython license is OSI-approved, but GPL-compatibility is not quite the same thing.
Jython is cool because it allows Python code to be compiled into Java class files, but you need to distribute those files along with the Jython class files... but if you're distributing them together, doesn't that break the GPL?
--Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
Seriously, though, many, if not most, of the licenses that the FSF tags as "non-compliant" are indeed "compliant". Your lawyer is the final authority, not RMS. If you have a package under the GPL, and want to include packages not under the GPL, you should consult your lawyer, not RMS. Or hell, just read the damn licenses! If you have a GPL program, it is perfectly permissible to link against non-GPL libraries, provided you satisfy the license of the libraries (e.g., pay them their royalty, etc). The only time I can imagine this would be a problem is if the library owner required you to keep secret the exported API of the library.
The GPL requires that software licensed under the GPL must have the source code available and freely distributable. It does NOT require that packages you link against be under, or even "compatible" with, the GPL. As long as the package you link against does not require that it's API be kept secret (thereby requiring your code to be closed), link away and distribute under the GPL.
Personally, I feel the GPL is too restrictive. If I export an API, and other people use that API, that's perfectly OK, even if their package is proprietary! As long as the library license is satisfied (e.g., do I charge money for using the license, etc), people are free to link to it and keep their code closed or open, as they see fit. If they take my code (i.e., my library package), and modify it, then the modifications need to be returned to me, and kept public. THAT is the type of license we need--not some license which is getting too big for its britches.
RMS is not about creativity. He's not about fostering new and innovative development. RMS is about forcing every single piece of software in the world to be "open-source". The only reason for the LGPL is because if he didn't have it, RMS knew people would not use his beloved GNU system.
Me, I believe there is a valid and important need for proprietary software. "Free software" is not a duty of the developer. Providing quality software is. It is neither ethical nor even technically right, in spirit or in fact, to require a developer to make his/her source code open to the world. Whether or not a developer/company decides to publish program source is purely up to the company. Source code represents a significant investment of time and money, and the decision to just throw that away is a very serious decision. RMS condemns people/companies out-of-hand if they make what he considers a wrong decision. RMS is not God. RMS does not sign their paychecks. RMS does not pay their rent or house payments. RMS is not accountable to their stockholders. We are a capitalist society. Capitalism works, and works well. Even China has realized that, as she slowly begins to allow her citizens to venture into private enterprise. RMS wants to socialize software. Socializing software will never work. Software is an asset, and only belongs to the community when the owner makes it so. If I work on a house for Habitat for Humanity, I donate my skills--this is my choice. If I work on a house for profit, I sell my skills, and am not condemned for doing so. The same principle should apply to software. It's too bad so many people blindly follow RMS without truly thinking about it.
Matthew Vanecek For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting i
No offense, but it doesn't really matter what you think. Copyleft is a FSF phrase. And they say the QPL isn't copyleft. Make up your own word if you don't like theirs.
The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard
The owner of the copyright still has more rights than anyone else. He can relicense it under a different license. No one else is granting that power. So the initial developer has special rights, just like in the NPL case. Granted, they don't cause the problems that occur with NPL, but special rights still exist.
Licenses like public domain and BSD don't have tihs problem.
If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.
This is a meaningless statement, since copyleft is tautologically equivalent to the GPL. Copyleft is a neologism coined by the FSF to mean "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well." And since they have a non-standard definition of "free", theirs is the only license that fully satisfies their definition of "copyleft".
Try reading over their license list: X license - not copyleft, BSD license - not copyleft, W3C license - not copyleft, Artistic license - not copyleft, Python license - not copyleft, Apache license - not copyleft, Zope license - not copyleft, OpenLDAP license - not copyleft, IBM PL, Mozilla PL, Sun PL, Netscape PL, Qt PL, PHP license, all not copyleft.
I would like to know why many people in the community are so hung up on the GPL. How is it better than the Apache, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic or other licences?
The GPL makes certain types of free software businesses more viable by requiring that others who build on the GPL'ed work must make their work freely redistributable, but some other copying conditions also have this property to varying degrees, for example the Mozilla Public License. What makes the GPL special in comparison to other copying conditions that have this crucial type of restriction is that the GPL has the largest collection of legally cominglable software (which includes a lot of software that does not restrict proprietary variants, like "new BSD style", "MIT style" and public domain). This software includes critical components of a free system, such as the GNU compilers and the best implementations of a myriad of unix-style utilities. Why is the amount of mutually cominglable software important? Because the efficiencies of software sharing depend on what software there is to share, and often this sharing occurs in ways that were not efficient to anticipate as an prewritten programming interface when the software is originally created. Software recycling is a network effect. So, if you write code under GPL compatible copying conditions, it should find the most use, adaptation and contribution in the future.
By the way, some people also feel there is an ethetical issue in wanting or opposing restrictions against derivative works. I think both of those groups probably feel something that is part of a larger efficiency ethic that angers us when we see our time being wasted even when we are being paid by the hour, for example, and that probably motivates a lot of free software development by itself.
Of course, I imagine other people have other reasons as well. I certainly don't know everyone's mind on this.
11763 is less than 18296.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
I have no trouble with either license -- it's up to the original developer to choose one. And while it's tempting to view the GPL as non-free since you aren't free to co-opt the code, I really like the "sharing is a two-way street" mentality of the GPL.
If you take code under the GPL, modify it, release the binaries without the source and then claim ignorance and whine that the GPL has somehow "infected" your hard work, you're just dumb. If Microsoft believes that all their customers should read and understand the five-page, ALL CAPS legalese they ship with their products, they should be held accountable for realizing when they're basing their code off something that's released under the GPL. And so instead they spread FUD that GPL code is a bad thing since they can't use it in their products.
Pop quiz. You arrive at a birthday party, and everyone's brought some toys to play with, including you. You play with other people's toys, but when someone reaches for one of your toys you slap their hand and scream, "That's my toy!" How long before you get kicked out of the party? And how many people in attendance will miss you?
Peace PatientZero
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I'm not sure which companies are buying all of these bargain priced service contracts. I work for a small company ($4million US) and started work there after having some of these erstwhile contracts. Quite frankly, they were for shit. After about 8 months of me wiping the asses and covering for idiots, I cancelled the contracts, and did my own damned maintenance. The cost savings have been tremendous.
Problem is, by kicking out various proprietary cruft (Yeah, yeah, M$ was my first target, but there are others) I'm also making my job a hell of a lot easier, as the *nix stuff just keeps on going and going and going...
I'm not saying that some companies don't get some measure of value out of service contracts. But I have a feeling that most of them were purchased without a cost-benefit analysis (with the option of in house experts included) and solely for the purpose of allowing some manager to sleep at night, knowing that the CYA step was accomplished.
So, since I think service contracts are worthless (I figure that I should get what I paid for when I signed my contract. When I get that, THEN I'll start paying for service. But if you give me a 90% program, I consider the time waiting for the other 10% to be an extended installation period.) I don't bother with 'em. Four years and going, and haven't missed 'em a bit. What we have had to pay for, service wise, has been maybe 15% of what the service contract would have been (and no, the service contracts weren't out of the ordinary. They were just as useful as the extended warranty at Circuit City.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I guess they wanted to update it to get more people to go to the movie. This crap of the MPAA licensing movies and requiring a click-through is getting out of hand.
But won't John Cleese be pissed off if I steal his bits for my own comedy act?
...Programming language? WTF are you talking about?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
You don't have to declare variables and their type before use.
:)
Ahhh something I hate about both python and perl. Not declaring a variable before use. I am surprised python allows this. They tout themselves as an easy to understand language (whitespace has scope signifigance etc),but they allow the coder to be sloppy. The misspelled variable then becomes valid and a difficult bug to find! Also the declaration of the variable serves as a good place to comment its use. In my opinion the strict pragma (or whatever it is in perl) should be mandatory. But everyone has their own preferences
r
---
Take an existing GPL-project like Open Office, which is dual licensed.
They can actually demand that people who want their patches included in official release agree to cross-license their code. Noone has a right to get any code included in the official Linux kernel for example. So Linus could have (from the start, now it is next to impossible as he has to get approval from all contributors),
released the Linuxkernel, and demanded that people who wanted anything in the official Linuxkernel cross-licensed their code. Of course he could also demand that any forks is not to be called Linux as he has copyright on that name.
Of course, anyone can fork Open Office so that they don't have to submit anything cross-licensed, and the official Open Office cannot use it unless they only make it available in their GPL-version.
Note: I'm not saying this is how Open Office currently works, it is just an example.
The point behind cross-licensing is to make the original authors capable of releasing a commercial version.
For instance.. Qt is available in two licenses, GPL and commercial. This makes sure that Trolltech can earn money off people wanting to develop closed-source projects.
I do not know how their policy on patches is, but if they do not demand patches to be cross-licensed I would except that most people submit patches to them cross-licensed anyway, since they recognize the important work Trolltech has done for the community and wants to give something back.
Not only flamebait, but also very wrong.
I'm normally in favor of the GPL, but when it comes to interpreted languages, I'm glad they are not GPL'd, as anything that LINKS to a GPL'd application (with an exception when it comes to system libraries), has to be GPL'd.
As a python-script is totally dependent of Python, this would make all python-scripts GPL'd.. of course, Python isn't GPL'd so this isn't a problem.
The moral is; choose licenses with care, neither the BSD nor the GPL is any better than the other, they are different though.
.. I don't normally think that the proprietary plugins are ok with a stock GPL-license. As long as the plugins are dependent on the GIMP, then they have to be GPL as well.
However, I _do_ think that in this particular case (The Gimp), there is an exception-clause that grants you the right to create proprietary plugins.
The same is true for the Linux-kernel, for which Linus Torvalds has said that proprietary kernel-modules that do not modify any kernel-code, is ok.
>>That's about as non-open as you can get.
Maybe just nit-picking about semantics, but while appreciating your sentiments, I have to strongly disagree. Now I don't get to look at the source, but I'm not going to get anywhere close to the binary either. Whoever has control of the binary has access to the source. That seems to fit the requirements of Open Source, GPL included.
I'm running a stock Red Hat 7.1 box; the only mods are that I'm running GNOME 1.4, Mozilla 0.9.1 (which broke parts of Nautilus), and I've got Python 2.1 installed.
#!/usr/bin/env python
... will always run Python 1.5.x, and
#!/usr/bin/env python2
... will always run Python 2.1.
In other words, exactly what is it that you're complaining about here? Seems to me like you're whining over a problem which doesn't even exist.
Congrats to the PSF and FSF for getting this worked out.
"Hey... don't be mean." --Buckaroo Banzai
yes, the fact that I don't own a TV set *does* make me a better person.
Ahh, straight out of one of my favorites from The Onion: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
Maybe not having a TV makes you a better person, but being a smug prick does not.
-Bruce
That would be very amusing. The resulting collection of software would be incompatible with itself. NPL grants special rights to the initial developer. If you have product A NPLed by vendor AA, and product B NPLed by vendor BB, then a third party cannot legally distribute a combined work AB, because they'd have to grant extra rights over A to vendor BB and extra rights over B to vendor AA, which a third party has no power to do.
If you have any license which grants more rights to one party than another, then that license is useless as a "gold standard of compatibility". The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard. If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I believe the mandatory click-through license agreement was considered incompatible.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
Guido's quote in the very interview you reference.
[full document]
Want Root?
The Perl strict pragma will not be mandatory in Perl 6, but it will probably be the default. Happy? :-)
What, now the licenses have bugs too? I'd better start asking my lawyer what debugger he uses...
Nobody "forced" him. My point has been made... again.
...
Actually, nope. From the original poster:
I know RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL or a compatible license,
He, like many of us, wonder why others are so strongly urged to switch to a GPL-compatible license while their software is using a license they are happy with. It was even open source.
Sorry, you don't respond to a deep thread and tell me how I am wrong when the argument was whether or not RMS was forced. He wasn't.
Do you mean Guido? I am not claiming he was forced but strongly urged. Reread the link you provided. I found this at the end of it:
Anyway, I removed the acceptance ceremony from the 2.1 license, in the hope that this would satisfy the FSF. Unfortunately, the FSF's response to the 2.1 license (see above) seems to suggest that they have changed their position once again, and are now requesting other changes in the license. I'm very, very tired of this, so on to the next question!
Guido says it quite elegantly.
Again, nice try.
At what? I proved that the FSF was urging--this is different than forcing--Guido to make changes in the license to be GPL-compatible. The quote above proves it.
If someone was whining in your ear non-stop, would it be "your decision" to walk away, or would you be forced to, to save yourself a headache?
It looks like you are the one splitting hairs. A comment like "would you be forced to, to save yourself a headache?" is not saying anyone actually forced someone to do something. It is saying someone was trying to avoid a headache from incessant urging.
Example:
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Child: Mom, can I have it?
Mom: Ok! Here you can have it. Just be quiet.
The child did not make the mother to give it to him/her, but through persistance convinced the mother to give it.
Its tiresome that you are taking my comments out of context, and responding over and over to the wrong thread. If you like, you can respond to my original thread to the original bigot.
The original poster said RMS did not force Guido, and Guido did it because he wanted to. My comments have been on target. Saying I am off topic will not make your logic any better.
Two other posters with one comment by Guido and myself with another show without a shadow of a doubt that Guido was annoyed with the FSF's incessant urging to make Python GPL-compatible. It is not forcing. Only you have accused others of using that term. They only implied coercion by threat of headache. As I have stated many times, this is NOT by force.
I can't help you to see the truth. Oh, well. Life goes on.
Have a nice weekend.
I could not agree more. For chrissakes, people, use software that does what you want. I don't give a damn what license a piece of software uses, if it does what I need, I'll use it and speak highly of it too. If I have to pay for it, that's fine too. Life's way too short to put up with crap software, just because of sillyness like this.
I wonder how many blind zealots there were that did not use python (until now) because of its GPL-incompatible licensing issues?
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
and it _wasn't_ ultimately his decision.
If someone was whining in your ear non-stop, would it be "your decision" to walk away, or would you be forced to, to save yourself a headache?
---
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
The BSD license gets referred to as a flaw in the opensource system. I really hate to use this as a reference but the movie Antitrust spoke about code that could well have been under a BSD type license.
Um, it is under another open source license -- one that's less restrictive than the GPL, and allows integration into closed source programs. The BSD-like license it's now under, however, is compatible with the GPL, so it can be used in GPLed programs.
Jeremy
--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
Instead of spending time messing around with datatypes and variable declarations, you can instead create automated test-cases that will catch your mistakes, even after a rewrite!
I know it's scary, but you get so much more productive without worrying about that extra fluff. Just remember to name them properly and distinctively.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
RMS thinks that proprietary is the devil of programs. I don't quite agree. M$ is the devil of all programs; they abuse their position. Other proprietary things don't hurt unless you are the ones getting pissed on.
;-)
What are you saying here? That RMS is wrong, that proprietary is evil unless you aren't among those who get stepped on, or M$ just stinks bad man!
Often it helps to reread your own post
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
One thing I'll never understand is how a program can be GPL compatible AND cross-licensed. That just doesn't make sense to me, unless people do submit GPL-only patches that will never make it into the BSD-branch. Suddenly you've forked the project. Either that, or you're breaking the law in some way. What IS the point?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Just to clarify a common misconception on this thread, Python is not subject to the GPL. You are not forced to distribute your source code if you make mods to Python. The license is actually more like BSD and Apache (free to modify and distribute; must cite copyright). "Compatible" just means that the FSF has signed off on the wording on the license in relation to linking or including with GPL software.
At a former employer I helped to embed a Python interpreter in a proprietary hard-assed firewall system, some components of which were classified by the feds. That's about as non-open as you can get.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
It helps that there is a great tutor mailing list with a very helpful community.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
-
-
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
How they claim the freedom to choose which OS you prefer, but it must be linux. If you love freedom of choice so much then you should not complain about people who prefer windows/macos/bsd/commercial unix/etc/etc.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I think I have far too much hold over the world. Just yesterday I decided to quit learning Python in favour of C purely because of this issue, and today they go GPL...
I'm scared...
---
The only pressure put on them to be GPL compatible was the number of programmers who would use a GPL compatible python vs the number who would not.
So this choice to become compatible was entirely the developers free will.
I hope that email works, because if I ever get tired of this account, I now know where to send the password.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Leave it out, user #3872. This joke got old years ago.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Why does everyone go for GPL'd software. I am beginning to think that this is just a status symbol. I like Python a lot... I think I might like it a little less now.
actually, guido inexplicibly links to the FSF letter http://www.python.org/2.1/fsf.html which, if you read it you will see, contains reasonable concerns. guido might be frustrated with the state of the legal system, but the FSF in that letter makes much more sense than guido so elegantly does not.
_if_ python has gone GPL, I wonder how long it will be before PHP 4 is GPLed again ..
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Karma whorin' since 1999
Now you can have your Python interpetor as "free" software, weither gratis or what not. So? Unless you are -really- intrested in such a thing as working and re-distributing the work (I'm sure many are), I would say that the only thing that I'm not too sure on is any and all libs that can be used are/aren't GPL'ed (I feel that the LGPL on extra libs would be apporopriate; there are many uses for a Python script.) and you are a coder in python. I'm not a Python coder. I could care less.
The GPL isn't the only open-source licence. I feel my work should be under an X11 licence, or a BSD-style licence, unless someone like M$ finds it useful. In that case, I would GPL it.
The GPL is great, but if I'm working on this for a company (yeah, boo me while you go play Quake under its EULA) it's a hassle. RMS thinks that proprietary is the devil of programs. I don't quite agree. M$ is the devil of all programs; they abuse their position. Other proprietary things don't hurt unless you are the ones getting pissed on. How do you think I feel when I can't use hardware with a proprietary interface on Linux? Yet that same cheapo device works on my mom's computer and I get the good hardware. :-)
Anyway, this seems to be more a rant imo. Though I don't feel it has to do with Python; nessiarly ;-) I like that it's GPL'ed, but what would happen if it was put under another open-source licence? Would it make /.?
Karma whorin' since 1999
It's becomming clearer and clearer that things like the GPL are the check point in the system that is correcting and will keep inline the rest of the software industry. Up untill such things as the GPL became popular enough as it now is, the profit seeking part of the software industry had pretty much all the freedom to become lazy and overpriced thru marketing BS. But the GPL provides the counter balance that will help make and keep the rest of the industry honest and hard working. Simply because it is the way people can say, and without being easily ignored, NO to the BS. The GPL and other varieties of licenses are more intune with the true spectrum of the possible. A spectrum that Bill Gates damaged rather badly when he yelled "PIRACY" and made the TIME magizine cover story in doing this name calling. The cover story was "The Great Software Flap" IIRC, and back in the mid 1970's. But it is where the natural evolution of software development direction was rudely interrupted.
This growing counter balance now, is really only the beginning of getting the software industry back on proper track. This GPL compatability of python is a good step in that direction.
I'm sure any program anyone writes in the python language is up to the programmer/author of the work (or their employer) to determine what license the program will have. So long as it doesn't contridict the Python License by altering python.
It'll be a brighter day when such things as auto-coding come about that enables the typical user to create application on their own and as they see fit. But that's not something easy to happen without first establishing the tool set to do auto-coding. All things considered, such a thing as auto-coding for the general public is not going to come from the profit targeting section of the software industry, but rather from the GPL side of the spectrum. So with this in mind, python and other GPL side of the sprectrum programming languages are certainly good. For me python is proving to have what I need and commercial langages don't. A step in the direction of Auto-coding - Python-IQ
3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!
Well, would you rather watch any old basketball game, or one featuring your favorite team?
:)
Would you rather that your favorite team lost, or won?
What team do most people in Los Angeles root for?
And finally... can you guess what all this might have to do with the GPL and RMS?
Why does it really matter if programs are GPL compatible? I understand the whole linking issue and legalities behind it still seems ridiculous to me.
Let me explain my point of view: RMS whines about the freedoms of users and programmers regarding software, but what about the freedom to use the license that you want to for your software? I know RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL or a compatible license, but who out there believes that he wouldn't if he could?
The impression I get is that RMS treats free software as a religion and like most religions it's followers not only believe that it is the only right one and all others should convert, but they preach it to everyone that they can regardless of wether they care or not. It's really annoying to me. (Please Note: I didn't intend this as an attack on religions, just an observation. I respect everyone's beliefs regardless of what they may be).
Now my other opinion is that it's a little conceited to say that "If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL". I agree that most Linux distros have an incredibly high concentration of GPL software, but that's only Linux distros. What about commercial UNIX's and the BSD's?
Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.
<sarcasm>
From this point forward I urge everyone to choose a license that is compatible with the NPL (Netscape Public License). I will create a list shortly and post it on the web somewhere and every free software developer should read this list and choose one on it for their software.
</sarcasm>
--
Garett
--RMS
--
--hongpong.com
The licensing of intellectual property is quite complicated when all possible issues are considered.
The GPL is a work of legal art. Richard Stallman had lawyers write the provisions so that development of free software can proceed efficiently, without hidden hassles.
Most of the people who criticise Mr. Stallman do not understand the issues. For example, the length of a license is not a reason to think negatively about it.
Writing a good contract is as intellectually sophisticated as writing a good computer program. The provisions of the GPL are necessary to promote the sharing and re-use of software.
Bush's education improvements were
I'm disappointed to see that someone felt my comments were flaimbait.
Perhaps I was not clear in my point, which was not relating to the accountability (or lack thereof) established in shrink-wrapped licenses, but more relating to the ability to have a company to rely on to provide primarily technical support. The software to which I was refering was the category of development tools, libraries and other resources such as embedded realtim operating systems. These pieces of software typically have comprehensive support contracts associated with their licenses, as well as financial non-performance penalties.
These are things you simply can't get with OSS software regardless of weather it's GPL'd ordistributed under any other OSS license.
Well, more precisely, most large corporations have not yet realized the value they can extract from OSS through contracting with OSS support companies such as NuSphere which supports MySQL, and others that commercially package OSS apps. My point here, and above is, that it doesn't matter weather softwar is GPL'd or not. OSS is OSS, plain and simple.
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
OK, so I'm not sure I see the value in apeasing the Free Software Foundation anymore. At one point they were the only folks championing a unique and at that time - new and different development and software distribution model, but at this point, there are enough open-source licenses out there which all offer substancially the same protections to the author of a product, and provide the same rights and restrictions on distribution.
I understand the derivitive work licensing componant of the GPL, but that aside for the moment - assuming the author of the application in question has no interest in this provision, what is the real value in making your license GPL compatible? What does that buy you? I have yet to hear of a company that refuses to use non GPL compliant software. I have, on the other hand, dealt with many companies who refuse to use GPL's software due to the restrictions it introduces, as well as the general lack of accountbility which is an integral part of most open-source licenses.
With this in mind, why would someone spend such inordinate amounts of time making software (it's license, rather) GPL compliant? It doesn't make the software any more free (monetarily speaking) or any more Open-Source... So why bother?
Are there really people out there who refuse to use non-GPL's software or something?
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
If I were to use a modified Linux kernel as the operating system for a VCR, plus an application program compiled with gnu C and using an LGPL'd library, then
1) I would have to send Linus a copy of the kernel source code.
2) I would have to provide the purchasers of the VCR some way to get the kernel source code.
3) The kernel would be GPL.
4) The application could be proprietary.
The main problem I can see in this (aside from execs who believe M$ FUD), is that if we made extensive hardware-related changes to the kernel, being able to download the source code would make it easier for our competitors to reverse-engineer the product. However, in most cases this could be avoided by putting the hardware dependent stuff in the proprietary modules, and doing kernel changes only to trim out the unused pieces. (e.g., no disk drive, so delete all that...)
Am I correctly interpreting the GPL?
Despite your position on the GPL, having all ambiguity regarding the license will solve very much. Slashdot raised quite a discussion about this already. Now that this is behind us all, we can get back to coding.
Actually, the GPL is not "THE Open source license", it is the Free Software license. This issue before was that Python didn't qualify as GPL, hence the confusion. This is explained quite nicely here.
Oh, I see. This news story _wasn't_ about Python conforming to the GPL. I see, Guido _didn't_ GPL Python, and it _wasn't_ ultimately his decision.
Yea, right. Nice try, however.
Again, nice try.
I believe the python license is GPL compatible when I read from the Free Software Foundation. Not before.
I don't make such a claim, and that's not even at stake. One of the four freedoms is the freedom to adapt the program to what you need. If you do it yourself (because you're a programmer) or if you ask someone to do it for you (paying or not) you need the code to do it. As any manager that ever had a program in its hand that he couldn't adapt nor pay someone to adapt because the company died, the problem of not having code is not only for programmers.
"If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL"
doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it ? If the first, and for some time, the only license that guarantees that users will have freedom to use, adapt, copy and redistribute, any free software license should be compatible with it, right ?
Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.
Here's an interesting point of view: if you believe in something (in this case free software) and dedicate your life to advocating that something, but the world isn't using right now, you should simply quit, be a buddy and give up all your work as others would like it, not as you which.
Stallman's work is in advocating the GPL. Do you really believe it's reasonable for him to simply loose his principles for the comfort of others who don't believe in the same things ?
This is a clear case where the owner intended to respect the spirit of the contract although at some point the wordings were not agreeable by both sides.
There are too many other cases, in my view, where the spirit is not honoured rather the wordings twisted to suit each's interests.
Reality is what we taste, smell, see, hear and touch yet we cannot comprehend it...only approximate it.
-- Face it, at the end of the day, you've got to accept that I am a cunt.
-- Face it, at the end of the day, you've got to accept that I'm a cunt.