Ed Jensen wrote: [On closed source derivatives of Python]
> I'm aware of this concern. I don't think it's justified. Unless > you'd like to point out all those closed, proprietary Python > implementations that are destroying civilization as we know it. Well, there was some concern voiced at EuroPython that a certain large software-patent-lobbying organisation wouldn't release the shiny port of Python that they'd done for their mobile telephone products. Now, one can either emulate that well-practised foot-stamping routine of yours... > Wah, wah, I gave this software away for free, and people are actually > using it without giving anything back! Wah, wah! ...or one can question the suitability or otherwise of the Python licence. Since licences define the type of sharing and community around a project, one has to be careful in choosing a licence in order to get the kind of sharing and community that one wants. In another recent licensing spat, some people are apparently unhappy with one Python-related project's use of the GPL, since the code they originally contributed to an older, related project ends up being redistributed under the GPL in the former project whereas the latter project cannot redistribute the former project's original code without putting a GPL licence on the distributed work. Now, if the latter project, with its advantage of having come into existence first had chosen a GPL-incompatible licence, it's quite possible that they would have avoided the situation that some seem to bemoan, but then one has to consider the likelihood that people actually do want GPL compatibility in their favourite open source projects. My point about the freeloading was that business understandably likes to do it. I don't feel any sympathy for participants in various Apache projects that are hugely popular in business, for example, if those participants dislike the lack of contributions from those companies using their software to make money, because those who founded those projects made a conscious licensing decision and that decision defines the kind of sharing (or otherwise) around such projects. > I never said anything was being "pushed on" me. I never said anything > was being "imposed on" me. I said an agenda was being pushed. > Stallman and company have an agenda, and the GPL is their instrument > of choice for pushing that agenda. So if you're not personally affected, as you claim, why does it bother you? Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
