On 11/25/06, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And how do you think this is different from any other publication? That > Python Papers is under a CC licence is a red-herring.
Well, the CC license is viral. According to the CC explanation of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license I am free to create a derivative work, but only if I then release that work under an identical license. When I look at the Python Cookbook, it doesn't seem to encumber derived works the same way. Instead, the Python Cookbook page says "Except where otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under the Python license." The Python license is extraordinarily broad in what I'm allowed to do with it, including reusing code in a commercial project. > Again, how is this different from any other publication? Unless you only > read public domain publications, anything you read is copyrighted, and > your arguments apply just as much -- perhaps more so -- depending on the > licence of that publication. Yes, of course. Thus, I have to avoid using code out of any publication with a viral non-commercial license if there's any chance my code will be sold commercially. For the same reason, I won't take code from a GPL'd product and reuse it in a commercial project without getting a commercial license from the copyright holder. By the way, I wasn't really trying to complain about the Python Paper's choice of license. I just wanted to give my perspective on why the licensing terms make it unsuitable for me. The copyright holders are welcome to release their work under any terms they are comfortable with. -- Jerry -- Jerry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
