Chris Warrick wrote: > On 3 May 2017 at 17:19, Victor Porton <por...@narod.ru> wrote: >> What do you mean by "banned"? Does this mean that Google does not use >> software of this license? > > https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/ > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/
It is irrelevant for me that Google Code bans my license (by the way it seems that Google banned it only in the past, not now). I anyway host it at GitHub not at Google Code. >> My package is a professional tool unlike other's hacks. > > You yourself called your code a hack: > >>> Also, this line looks unconvincing: >>> >>> # This is a quick hack. For serious work use >>> https://github.com/paypal/PayPal-Python-SDK instead. Here I use the word "hack" to mean "something that works but isn't a full featured solution". This hack in my software applies to a very small fragment of my code not to entire code. That this small fragment is a hack does not influence the external behavior of the software. Thus it does not matter for users of my software. >> This quick hack does work for the purpose it was made. This class is >> not feature-rich, but other features are not needed by other parts of >> my software. So it's OK. > > No, it’s not okay. Quick hacks are never good when dealing with money. I made this hack with only one purpose, to avoid dependency on https://github.com/paypal/PayPal-Python-SDK. Thus this "hack" eases installation of my software: the user needs to install only one package rather than two. Also it makes my software to load quicker. So this hack is a benefit for the user not a deficiency. And nothing prevents the user to use PayPal-Python-SDK with or instead of this my quick hack. You carp with words, finding a problem where there is no real problem, just words (I mean the word "hack") which sound like a problem. -- Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
