On Nov 3, 9:55 pm, Matt wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to concatenate several hundred files based on their filename..
> Filenames are like this:
>
> Q1.HOMOblast.fasta
> Q1.mus.blast.fasta
> Q1.query.fasta
> Q2.HOMOblast.fasta
> Q2.mus.blast.fasta
> Q2.query.fasta
> ...
> Q1223.HOMOblast.fasta
On Nov 1, 11:02 pm, Makoto Kuwata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to define a special class which groups functions, like:
>
> class Greepting(FuncGroup):
> def hello(): # no self, no @staticmethod!
> print("Hello!")
> def goodbye(): # no self, no @staticmeth
On Oct 31, 9:12 pm, Dave Angel wrote:
> I would claim that a well-written (in C) translate function, without
> using the delete option, should be much quicker than any python loop,
> even if it does copy the data.
Are you arguing with me? I was agreeing with you, I thought, that
translate would
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Dave Angel wrote:
Yes. Actually, you don't even need the split() -- you can pass an
optional deletechars parameter to translate().
On Oct 31, 5:52 pm, Ian Kelly wrote:
> That sounds overly complicated and error-prone.
Not really.
> For instance, split() wil
On Oct 28, 3:24 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 2:05 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On Oct 27, 10:23 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> I do not think everyone else should suffer substantial increase in space
> >> and run time to avoid surprising you.
>
>
On Oct 28, 8:01 pm, Steven D'Aprano > > ALREADY LOSES DATA if the
iterator isn't the right size and it raises an
> > exception.
>
> Yes. What's your point? This fact doesn't support your proposal in the
> slightest.
You earlier made the argument that "If the slice has too few elements,
you've just
On Oct 28, 4:51 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Oct 28, 3:19 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> > On 10/28/2011 3:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > > If the slice has too few elements, you've just blown away the entire
> > > iterator for no good reason.
>
On Oct 28, 3:19 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 3:21 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > If the slice has too few elements, you've just blown away the entire
> > iterator for no good reason.
> > If the slice is the right length, but the iterator doesn't next raise
> > StopIteration, you've jus
On Oct 27, 10:23 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> I do not think everyone else should suffer substantial increase in space
> and run time to avoid surprising you.
What substantial increase? There's already a check that winds up
raising an exception. Just make it empty an iterator instead.
> > It vio
On Oct 27, 9:46 pm, candide wrote:
> Le 28/10/2011 02:02, MRAB a crit :
>
>
>
> > No, built-in classes written in C have certain limitations, but why
> > would you want to do that anyway?
>
> Mainly for learning purpose and Python better understanding.
>
> Actually, I have a class of mine for draw
On Oct 27, 5:31 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> From the outside, you can't tell how big a generator expression is. It has no
> length:
I understand that.
> Since the array object has no way of telling whether the generator will have
> the correct size, it refuses to guess.
It doesn't have to gu
Bug or misunderstanding?
Python 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:13:53)
[GCC 4.5.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> x = 32 * [0]
>>> x[:] = (x for x in xrange(32))
>>> from ctypes import c_uint
>>> x = (32 * c_uint)()
>>> x[:] = xrange(32)
>>
On Jun 3, 9:54 pm, GZ wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am looking for an algorithm that can compare to source code files
> line by line and find the minimum diff. I have looked at the difflib
> included in python. The problem is that it is designed to make the
> diff results easier for humans to read, inste
On Jun 2, 6:25 am, John Machin wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:43 pm, johnty wrote:
>
> > i'm reading bytes from a serial port, and storing it into an array.
>
> > each byte represents a signed 8-bit int.
>
> > currently, the code i'm looking at converts them to an unsigned int by
> > doing ord(array[i]). h
On May 22, 6:14 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:13:30 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote about the lack
> of exceptions in Go:
>
> > Looking at their rationale, it is appears that one or more of the
> > primary go developers had to deal way too often with
On May 21, 10:30 pm, Chris Rebert wrote:
> Erm, in fairness, I recall hearing that some speed-critical bits of hg
> are written in C. It does lend credence to the "Python as glue
> language" argument though; I doubt hg's extensibility and friendly
> interface would have been as easy to implement
On May 22, 1:49 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Because, as I said, and as you explain further, Python favors programmer
> speed, including speed of testing new algorithms, over raw execution
> speed of current algorithms. (Current) speed is (also) easier to test
> than improvability and hence possible
On May 22, 5:00 am, Michele Simionato
wrote:
> On May 21, 4:20 pm, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> > What about Go, exactly, do people see as Python-like?
>
> The philosophy of keeping things simple. I find the concurrency
> mechanism quite Pythonic.
That's nice.
> Moreover Go interfaces are quite aki
On May 22, 2:43 am, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 21 Mai, 20:20, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > Also, any company in a competitive
> > market where execution speed is extremely important might choose some
> > other language because, frankly, the fact that a development tool is
>
On May 21, 9:12 pm, Ben Finney wrote:
> a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> > In article
> > ,
> > Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > >There are a lot of commercial programs written in Python. But any
> > >company which thinks it has a lock on some kind
On May 21, 8:45 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article
> ,
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
> >There are a lot of commercial programs written in Python. But any
> >company which thinks it has a lock on some kind of super secret sauce
> >isn't going to use P
On May 21, 5:21 am, Deep_Feelings wrote:
> i could not see many programs written in python
Well you could try PyPi, or even a search on googlecode.
> (i will be interested
> more in COMMERCIAL programs written in python ).
What do you mean by commercial, and why?
> and to be honest ,i
> tried
On May 20, 10:35 pm, Alex Hall wrote:
> So how do I get at anything inside **kw? Is it a list?
It's a dictionary. Use *args for a list. (As with self, the name is
whatever you want to use, but some sort of consistency is nice.)
One of the cool things about Python is how easy it is to play at
On May 20, 9:56 pm, Alex Hall wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am now trying to allow my classes, all of which subclass a single
> class (if that is the term), to provide optional arguments. Here is
> some of my code:
>
> class Craft():
> def __init__(self,
> name,
> isAircraft=False,
> id=helpers.id(),
>
On May 20, 6:57 pm, Brendan Miller wrote:
> I have a python script that sets up some environmental stuff. I would
> then like to be able to change back to interactive mode and use that
> environment. What's the best way to do that?
>>> import cmd
>>> class MyCmd(cmd.Cmd):
... def default(self,
On May 19, 10:28 pm, Ben Finney wrote:
> Better is to use ‘shlex.split’ to split the string as a shell parser
> would do http://docs.python.org/library/shlex#shlex.split>.
Good point. I always forget about shlex.split because I'm usually
passing (relatively) constant strings with no funny quoti
On May 19, 9:27 pm, Carbon wrote:
> I am new to Python and am trying to write a GUI wrapper script in python
> 2.5 to get username and passwords from Linux users to send as options to
> run an app on a 2X terminal server. I came across the easygui module and
> its multpasswordbox function, which m
On May 14, 3:19 am, "harry k" wrote:
> Write a spell checking tool that will identify all misspelled word in a text
> file using a provided dictionary.
Well, this has been educational. Both my daughters just finished
their final exams last week, so I was confused about seeing the
homework assi
On May 18, 1:41 pm, superpollo wrote:
> Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 12:31 pm, superpollo wrote:
> >> >>> def myfun():
> >> ... return "WOW"
> >> ...
> >> >>> myfun()
> &g
On May 18, 12:31 pm, superpollo wrote:
> >>> def myfun():
> ... return "WOW"
> ...
> >>> myfun()
> 'WOW'
> >>>
>
> now, i would like to "list" the funcion definition, something like this:
>
> >>> myfun.somethinglikethis()
> def myfun():
> return "WOW"
> >>>
>
> is there something lik
On May 18, 11:03 am, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-16 09:25 , Ed Keith wrote:
> > No, the GPL makes it clear that the responsibly is on the distributor to
> > either supply the source or written notice, Caveat venditor. The violation
> > exists regardless of whether or not the recipient makes
On May 17, 10:52 pm, shuvro wrote:
> Suppose I have a class like this -
>
> class myClass(object):
>
> def __init__(self):
> self.a = 10
> self.b = 20
>
> def my_method(self,var = 20):
> self.local_var = var
>
> I want to know about its method(__init__ and my_method
On May 17, 3:55 pm, Alex Hall wrote:
> So what is a subclass compared to a class? Are you saying that what is
> passed to the class, so what is in the parentheses of the class, is
> really the superclass? If so, what is the advantage of doing this; why
> not just create a class that is not a sub?
On May 17, 3:19 pm, Alex Hall wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am a bit confused about classes. What do you pass a class, since all
> the actual information is passed to __init__? For example, say you
> have a dog class. The dog object has a name, a size, and a color. I
> believe you would say this:
>
> class
On May 17, 8:20 am, a wrote:
> ps someone helped me with enumerate(), which works on the linux but
> not on the windows?
enumerate() works fine on windows. Perhaps your windows box has a
really old Python?
Regards,
Pat
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 16, 5:38 pm, James Mills wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:26 AM, vsoler wrote:
> > However, can I be 100% sure that,no matter how I access variable
> > 'x' (with config.x or mod.config.x) it is always the same 'x'. I mean
> > that either reference of 'x' points to the same id(memory posi
On May 16, 4:42 pm, vsoler wrote:
> Taken fromwww.python.org, FAQ 2.3 How do I share global variables
> across modules?
>
> config.py:
>
> x = 0 # Default value of the 'x' configuration setting
>
> mod.py:
>
> import config
> config.x = 1
>
> main.py:
>
> import config # try removing it
>
On May 16, 1:51 pm, Paul Carter wrote:
> We are using python for our build system. Each subproject dir has a
> python script that builds it. Parent dirs have python scripts that
> recurse into their children and use exec to invoke the python scripts.
> Recently we discovered that one of the python
On May 16, 9:19 am, Ed Keith wrote:
> --- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> wrote:
> > >> But what about the “freedom” to take away
> > other
> > >> people’s freedom? Is that really “freedom”?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > But that’s a “freedom” that non-GPL licences do not
> > give you, that the GPL
On May 15, 7:09 pm, Dave Angel wrote:
> Nathan Rice wrote:
> > This is precisely the situation mmap was made for :) It has almost the same
> > methods as a file so it should be an easy replacement.
>
> >
>
> Only on a 64bit system, and I'm not sure it's even possible there in
> every case. On a
On May 15, 7:09 pm, Dave Angel wrote:
> Nathan Rice wrote:
> > This is precisely the situation mmap was made for :) It has almost the same
> > methods as a file so it should be an easy replacement.
>
> >
>
> Only on a 64bit system, and I'm not sure it's even possible there in
> every case. On a
On May 15, 2:59 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
[Rest of the post, that contains points previously debated and well-
refuted, snipped]
> Any claim that a licensing change is needed merely to let people
> develop open source applications on the platform is dishonest,
See, there you go again, impugning th
On May 15, 12:49 pm, Albert van der Horst
wrote:
> In article
> <7bdce8a7-bf7d-4f1f-bc9d-1eca26974...@d27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
> >That is correct. All "privileges" as you put it are merely things
> >that a user can
On May 14, 8:04 am, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> You've never had to recode something because it was nominally available
>> under a proprietary licence that you (or your client) was unwilling to
>> use? Lucky you!
> Steven, did you actually read what he wrote? If you did, why
On May 15, 1:34 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message <548024fc-
> >> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g
On May 15, 12:50 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> The most obvious example was that the University of Berkley counter-sued
> Unix System Laboratories over USL's infringement of the BSD licence.
Well, I specifically ex
On May 14, 11:19 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:10:50 -0700, Ed Keith wrote:
> > But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them,
> > they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this
> > position.
>
> If your client is distributing software
On May 14, 9:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I think this talk about freedoms is dangerously incomplete, and is
> confusing the issue rather than shedding more light. Both licences grant
> the same positive freedoms (freedom to do something). MIT-style licences
> grant permission to:
>
> * make co
On May 14, 9:17 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Patrick
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > After all, lots of software ideas proved their worth in proprietary
> > systems, and then were later cloned by FOSS developers.
>
> And vice versa. Everybody
On May 14, 8:58 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms, under the MIT or
> > Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other licenses they have
> > fewer freedoms.
>
> But what about the “freedom” to take aw
On May 14, 9:32 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Don't be silly. That's why I started writing open source software in
> > the first place. But if I start writing stuff to put in the commons
> > with strings removed, why would I bother with a license that just adds
> > some strings back?
>
> To max
On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
> > do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
> > code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating t
On May 14, 8:57 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <84a26d03-03b3-47d9-
>
> a1f9-107470b87...@k2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > I also firmly believe, as I have stated before, that the GPL is a much
> > more commercial license
On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <548024fc-
> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b...@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin
> wrote:
>
> > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
> > must be distributed c
On May 14, 9:02 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> , Patrick
>
>
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message
> >> <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegro
On May 14, 6:52 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 21:14, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the
> > sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably
> > didn't provide a "written offe
On May 14, 7:24 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> "The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
> distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
> fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening
> noncommercial, occasional redistributors with
On May 14, 6:42 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > You really should slow down and read a bit more carefully.
>
> You might want to tone down the condescension.
I didn't start out condescending, and I agree I could have worded this
particular statement a bit more clearly, so I apologize for that, but
I
On May 14, 2:26 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > That statement was made in the context of why Carl doesn't use GPL-
> > licensed *libraries*. He and I have both explained the difference
> > between libraries and pr
On May 14, 1:38 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "If
> > > distribution of executable or object code is made by
On May 14, 1:07 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 19:00, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > Would you have agreed had he had said that "MatLab's license doesn't
> > do much good" and assigned the same sort of meaning to that statement,
> > namely that the
On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
>
> No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
> useful to clarify the licence auth
On May 14, 10:20 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 09:08, Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 10:59 pm, Steven D'Aprano
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:18:47 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > > > 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough* PySide)
>
> > > Yes. So what? In what possi
On May 14, 6:13 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <2b17ee77-0e49-4a97-994c-7582f86c0...@r34g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> Under the GPL, e
On May 14, 6:12 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <2ff3643b-6ef1-4471-8438-
>
>
>
> dcba0dc93...@a21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message , Ed
On May 14, 8:26 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 13 Mai, 22:10, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> Just to deal with your Ubuntu "high horse" situation first, you should
> take a look at the following for what people regard to be the best
> practices around GPL-licensed software
On May 14, 1:08 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:10:09 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > The broken window fallacy is about labor that could have been spent
> > elsewhere if someone else had done something differently. The only time
> > that comes i
On May 14, 9:10 am, Ed Keith wrote:
> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Patrick Maupin
> > Subject: Re: Picking a license
> > To: python-l...@python.org
> > Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM
> > On
On May 14, 8:47 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you
> > follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the
> > license is a "patch&qu
On May 13, 10:06 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Assertion I:
> > If person A is free to do more than person B, then person A has
> > more freedom then person B.
>
> > Assertion II:
> > If person A is free do perform an action person B is not free
On May 13, 10:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > The claim is being made that [the GPL] restricts freedom.
>
> What about the “freedom” to restrict other people’s freedom? Should that be
> restricted or not?
It's interesting that some people don't like the co
On May 13, 10:03 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <72888d2c-4b1a-4b08-a3aa-
>
> f4021d2ed...@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > If I download an Ubuntu ISO, burn it and give it away (let's say I give
> > away 100 copies, just to
On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to “relink”?
I think this might be a misconception, but I'm not 100% sure. Since
Ed gives his customers full source code, there may not be the
requirement to directly provide the ability to relink,
On May 13, 6:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:06:52 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> Perhaps the Apache model doesn't work quite as well as you think?
Apparently it's 66 percent of the web servers for the million busiest
sites, and presumably 65 for
On May 13, 6:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:06:52 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
[...]
> >> Only a
> >> tiny proportion of people would discover by their own efforts that the
> >> source code was available
>
> > No, I tell my fr
On May 13, 6:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:06:52 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > If I download an Ubuntu
> > ISO, burn it and give it away (let's say I give away 100 copies, just to
> > remove the fair use defense), then I have violated t
On May 13, 6:30 pm, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I think most of the disagreement in this long thread results
> from different beliefs in what "freedom" means, I wanted to add, that
> most of the responses that argue that the MIT license permits the user
> more freedom than th
On May 13, 11:19 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> People only have to honour requests for the corresponding source if
> asked for it. They are not violating copyright by default.
Well, the gospel according to the FSF says otherwise:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
> If you
On May 13, 9:53 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 13 Mai, 01:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once the court reaches that conclusion, it would only be a tiny step
> > to find that the FSF's attempt to claim that clisp infringes the
> > readline copyright t
On May 13, 7:25 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <155f1683-9bfd-4a83-b63f-7fb0fc2f5...@g21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>
> Maupin wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > wrote:
>
> >> In message , Ed
>
On May 13, 2:58 am, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 22:16:29 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> In message , Ed
> >> Keith wrote:
>
> >> > ... b
On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > ... but to claim that putting more restrictions on someone give them more
> > freedom is pure Orwellian double speak.
>
> What about the freedom to take away other people’s freedom?
The freedom to take away oth
On May 12, 6:15 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 20:29, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > But nobody's whining about the strings attached to the software. Just
> > pointing out why they sometimes won't use a particular piece of
> > software, and pointing
On May 12, 5:41 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > Ahh, well done. You've sucked me into a meaningless side debate. If
> > I'm not distributing readline, then legally the license distribution
> > terms don't apply to me. End of story. (Morally, now we might get
> > into how trivial it is or isn't.)
>
On May 12, 2:04 pm, kj wrote:
> It seems that a similar "simplicity argument" was invoked
> to strip the cmp option from sort in Python 3. G. Simplicity
> is great, but when the drive for it starts causing useful functionality
> to be thrown out, then it is going too far. Yes, I know that i
On May 12, 1:00 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 16:10, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 7:10 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > What the licence asks you to do and what the author of the licence
> > > wants you to do are two separate things.
>
> > B
On May 12, 12:17 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 16:45, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > Thus, "owned my soul" joins "holy war" and "Bin Laden" on the list.
> > > That rhetorical toolbox i
On May 12, 2:19 am, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 05/12/10 06:50, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> >> On 10 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> >>> The fact is, I know the man would force me to pay for the chocolate, so
>
On May 12, 7:43 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 22:50, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> > > Yes, *if* you took it. He isn't forcing you to take it, though, is he?
>
> > No, but he said a lot of words that I didn&#
On May 12, 7:26 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 23:02, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > Huh? Permissive licenses offer much better certainty for someone
> > attempting a creative mash-up. Different versions of the Apache
> > license don't conflict with each other.
On May 11, 10:06 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
> The point is, GPL (and OWL) is for programmers who just don't care about
> the legal stuffs and would want to spend more time writing code than
> writing license.
Absolutely. When I wrote "permissive license" I was not trying to
imply that everybody should
On May 12, 7:10 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 22:39, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > OK. Now I'm REALLY confused. I said "Certainly RMS
> > carefully lays out that the LGPL should be used sparingly in his "Why
> > you shouldn't use
On May 11, 6:18 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Last time I came home with chocolate, I tried that excuse on my wife. She
> didn't believe it for a second.
>
> Next time, I'll try claiming that I was obliged to eat the chocolate
> because of the GPL.
Good luck with that. Women can always see right
On May 11, 9:00 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 15:00, Lie Ryan wrote:
> > Come on, 99% of the projects released under GPL did so because they
> > don't want to learn much about the law; they just need to release it
> > under a certain license so their users have some legal certainty.
>
> Ye
On May 11, 5:34 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 20:36, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > I've addressed this before. Aahz used a word in an accurate, but to
> > you, inflammatory, sense, but it's still accurate -- the man *would*
> > force you to pay for the chocola
On May 11, 5:24 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 17:01, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > I'll be charitable and assume the fact that you can make that
> > statement without apparent guile merely means that you haven't read
> > the post I was referring to:
>
>
On May 10, 12:37 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 17:06, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <074b412a-c2f4-4090-a52c-4d69edb29...@d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Paul Boddie wrote:
> > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back
> > >changes":
On May 10, 6:01 am, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 03:09, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 6:39 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > > but if they aren't pitching it directly at you, why would you believe
> > > that they are trying to change your behavi
On May 9, 5:05 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 9 Mai, 21:55, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 12:08 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> > > Oh sure: the GPL hurts everyone, like all the companies who have made
> > > quite a lot of money out of effectively making Linux t
On May 9, 6:39 pm, Paul Boddie wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 00:02, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> If this is code that you would consider using in an existing project,
Well, in a few cases I'm talking about, I wouldn't consider using the
code -- I just stumbled across it when researching
1 - 100 of 318 matches
Mail list logo
