Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file: > > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions > to be GPL-compatible. The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the FSF, it isn't, because of the choice-of-law clause.
Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]: > Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or > > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file: > > > > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor > > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions > > to be GPL-compatible. > > The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the FSF, it > isn't, because of the choice-of-law clause. ^^^ Can you provide any proof for this claim ? >From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html: The License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions. This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are under other licenses (see below). The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL. Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python (1.6b1, through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (see below). Gregor
Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:10:31PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: | * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 15:04]: | > Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > > It's probably better to check if you're unsure rather than speculate or | > > guess. From the 2.1.1 LICENCE file: | > > | > > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor | > > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions | > > to be GPL-compatible. | > | > The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the FSF, it | > isn't, because of the choice-of-law clause. | ^^^ | | Can you provide any proof for this claim ? | | From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html: | | The License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions. | This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU | GPL. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are | under other licenses (see below). | | The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. | This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU | GPL. Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python | (1.6b1, through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (see ^^ | below). This is what I thought (note the micro version differences!, also note that python doesn't put a .0 micro version, but rather an empty string micro version for the first release) -D
Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor >> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions >> > to be GPL-compatible. >> >> The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the FSF, it >> isn't, because of the choice-of-law clause. > ^^^ > > Can you provide any proof for this claim ? > >>From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html: > > The License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions. > This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU > GPL. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are > under other licenses (see below). > > The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. > This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU > GPL. Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python > (1.6b1, through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (see > below). You have to follow the "see below" link on this page.
Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011107 16:08]: > Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > Python 1.6.1 is essentially the same as Python 1.6, with a few minor > >> > bug fixes, and with a different license that enables later versions > >> > to be GPL-compatible. > >> > >> The license claims to be GPL compatible, but according to the FSF, it > >> isn't, because of the choice-of-law clause. > > ^^^ > > > > Can you provide any proof for this claim ? > > > >>From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html: > > > > The License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions. > > This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU > > GPL. Please note, however, that newer versions of Python are > > under other licenses (see below). > > > > The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. > > This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU > > GPL. Please note, however, that intermediate versions of Python > > (1.6b1, through 2.0 and 2.1) are under a different license (see > > below). > > You have to follow the "see below" link on this page. Sorry, I guess I was misinterpreting you. I think we do agree that the License of Python 2.1.1, according to the FSF, is compatible with the GPL ? (That was my point, and I think I was prejudicating you ;-) Now for Python 1.6.1. The 'see below' in the second paragraph links to this (refering to 'intermediate versions of Python (1.6b1, through 2.0 and 2.1)': The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions, through 2.0 and 2.1. This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL. The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the laws of the State of Virginia, in the USA, and the GPL does not permit this. This section is incorrect, in that Python 1.6.1 has yet another different license. It should read something like The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions, through 2.0 and 2.1, but excluding 1.6.1 and derivatives thereof. Then, there should be another section The License of Python 1.6.1 and derivatives thereof since this license is different from the license license of 1.6. In fact the modification between 1.6 and 1.6.1 (which was made possible by CNRI) was the major step in making the release of 2.0.1 and 2.1.1 possible. OTOH, I wonder if B. Kuhn would be glad to list *four* different Python licenses on that page ? ;-) Gregor
Re: Python-2.1 becoming Debian's default Python version
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we do agree that the License of Python 2.1.1, according to the > FSF, is compatible with the GPL ? Yes! > This section is incorrect, in that Python 1.6.1 has yet another > different license. It should read something like > > The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions, through 2.0 and 2.1, > but excluding 1.6.1 and derivatives thereof. No, this is not correct. Although the 1.6.1 version was licensed in a way CNRI believed to be GPL compatible, the FSF still disagrees.
Build-Depends-Indep
Policy states that you should Build-Depends on python2.1-dev. Can this also be Build-Depends-Indep? I have a "Architecture: all" package. It's just 3 python files. No need for "Architecture: any" -- Danie Roux *shuffle* Adore Unix
Re: Build-Depends-Indep
On 07-Nov-2001 Danie Roux wrote: > Policy states that you should Build-Depends on python2.1-dev. > > Can this also be Build-Depends-Indep? I have a "Architecture: all" > package. It's just 3 python files. No need for "Architecture: any" > of course it can. We usually say "Build-Depends" when we mean any form of Build time depends info.
