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)
I'm sure there are more examples, but the NeXT/gcc one is the most famous.
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 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
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"'
Guido's quote in the very interview you reference.
What, now the licenses have bugs too? I'd better start asking my lawyer what debugger he uses...
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.
One major point of contention was that since Guido van Rossum now works for a company (CNRI) in the U.S. Commonwealth (non-US people: state) of Virginia, and that company naturally did not want to have to go around the world fighting court battles, they included language stating that any legal issues would be governed by the laws of Virginia. This makes reasonable sense for the company, but presents a problem for the FSF.
Why? Because the laws of any state or country are a moving target. If the FSF signs off today on the license as "Free Software" and Virginia passes UCITA the next day, the FSF would have to turn around and say that Python is no longer Free Software. Obviously no programmer would want to deal with this. So, the FSF's point of view is also perfectly reasonable. It just depends who's looking.
adéu,
Mateu
"And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
Disclaimer: I am by no means a GPL fanatic. But nonetheless I think I can help to answer your question.
The biggest component of the GPL that RMS and the fans of GPL like is the same thing that made Microsoft incorrectly call it a "cancer". The GPL basically says that if you take the source code to a GPL program, make changes, and then distribute the binary, you are obligated to release the source to whomever you released the binary. In addition, you must release your new source under the GPL license, which gives the new users of the source the ability to distribute the code for free, even if you do not. This does NOT mean you can't sell it, or that you have to give away your program free at all. It just means that the first person you sell code to has the ability to give it away.
People misunderstand the GPL because they see companies like Red Hat and Mandrake giving away almost all of their products off of FTP sites. They could, if they chose, only sell their CDs. The CDs, though, must have the source code for every GPL program on them. If they don't, they need to make that source code publicly available (like on a web site). If someone were to buy these CDs though, they have every right to take the GPL programs off the CD and redistribute them, for whatever price they want.
Some of the other licenses you mentioned do not require that the source code be released when code is used in another program (called a "derivative" work). This appeals more to closed-source companies that want to take advantage of open-source products without releasing their source code. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of each license, but I'm fairly sure that the ability to keep source closed applies to BSD, Apache, and Artistic licenses.
One more note about the GPL. One can distribute closed source programs that use GPL code, but the code must be seperated. A good example of this might be a program like the GIMP (image editor) with proprietary plugins. You can ship both together, since the GIMP is self-contained, and your plugins can still be closed-source.
In addition to the GPL, the LGPL (Lesser General Public License) exists but is not recommended by RMS and the gang. It's used primarily for libraries and allows closed-source products to fully contain the LGPL code. Library designers use this because they want their programming code to be used with commercial products. An example of this is wxWindows, a cross-platform C++ GUI library.
So basically the main reason that some people like GPL programs is that it does somewhat "promote" open-source, by requiring programs that use it to remain open-source for everyone. It's among the most restrictive and wordy licenses, you are correct, but I'm not familiar with any open-source license being completely challenged in court.
Hope this helps.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
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