Martin v. Löwis wrote: > I can see why you are not willing to do some of these things. But > I can't see why that is for other things. For example, why are you > not willing to license your contribution to the PSF (nobody asks > you to "sign it over")?
Because the software already has a license? I'm not talking about things that absolutely have to be in the Python interpreter core; I'm talking about things that *could* be bundled with the standard distribution, *without* having to be relicensed, or be forever maintained by the CPython developers. (the Linux distributors know how to do this: look for good stuff that's either actively maintained or simple and solid enough to live for a while, make sure the licenses are good enough, bundle the latest and greatest version, ship tested versions at regular intervals, update when necessary, and pass bugs and patches upstream. why not use the same approach for Python's standard distribution?) > As for "losing control" - you seem to have a notion of control that > truly makes it difficult to contribute to Python. Why does "contributing to Python" have to mean that a developer can no longer control the design and implementation of a module he or she has written? What if the target audience is larger than users of the latest CPython release, for example? > I don't think Python should change As things are today, 3-4 developers do about 50% of all check-ins to the python core *and* the standard library. One of those work mainly on the documentation. Are you sure today's approach is the best way to give the users the best possible standard distribution? Why? </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
