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
Guido's quote in the very interview you reference.
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.
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