Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Ethan Furman on 13 May 2010 20:12 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 06:24:04 -0700, Ed Keith wrote: > >> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro >> <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >>> What have you got against LGPL for this purpose? -- >>> >> Most of my clients would not know how to relink a program if their life >> depended on it. And I do not want to put then in DLL hell. So I avoid >> the LGPL. > > > Are you implying that by distributing your libraries under the MIT or > Apache licence, no linking is required? That's a cool trick, can you > explain how it works please? I believe he is implying that with MIT or Apache, he is able to do all the compiling/linking/generating himself, thus saving his customers the effort. You're a smart man, Steven, surely you could have figured that out? ;) ~Ethan~
From: Ethan Furman on 13 May 2010 20:12 Brendan Abel wrote: > While I think most of the disagreement in this long thread results > from different beliefs in what "freedom" means, I wanted to add, that > most of the responses that argue that the MIT license permits the user > more freedom than the GPL, suffer from the broken window fallacy. > This fallacy results from the short-sided-ness of the user base, as it > is only considering the first generation of derivative works. > > I agree, that under an MIT license, the first generation of derivative > works have more freedom. But any extra freedom gained here comes at > the direct expense of all future generations of derivative software. You are assuming that _all_ future generations become propriety, then? How pessimistic. > Under a GPL license, it is true that the first generation will have > less freedom to distribute their software as they would like. But it > also ensures that all subsequent generations of derivative works have > the freedom to access all previous derivative works. Just because you have the code for the _current_ version of something, doesn't mean you have the code for that something three versions ago... after all, it may have been modified. ~Ethan~
From: Ethan Furman on 14 May 2010 09:04 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: >>The only time >>that comes into play in my programming life is *when I have to recode* >>something that is nominally available under the GPL, > > You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available > under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to > use? Lucky you! Steven, did you actually read what he wrote? If you did, why would you say something so stupid? ~Ethan~
From: Duncan Booth on 15 May 2010 08:52 Ed Keith <e_d_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I can not imagine anyone being stupid enough to pay me for rights to > use code I had already published under the Boost License, which grants > then the rights to do anything they want with it without paying me > anything. > -EdK > Really? The Boost License says, amongst other things: > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND > NON-INFRINGEMENT. Are you sure you can't imagine anyone offering to pay you for an alternative license that came with some kind of warranty or support?
From: Aahz on 15 May 2010 11:24
In article <mailman.201.1273900677.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml(a)behnel.de> wrote: >aahz(a)pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: >> >> Which license you use depends partly on your political philosophy. > >Did they close down debian-legal, or why is this thread growing so long? Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ;-) -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng. |