On 2023-02-03, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 3/02/23 6:38 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> If you change someone else's code then you have created a derived
>> work, which requires permission from both the original author and you
>> to copy. (Unless you change it so much that nothing remains of the
>> original
On 3/02/23 6:38 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If you change someone else's code then you have created a derived
work, which requires permission from both the original author and you
to copy. (Unless you change it so much that nothing remains of the
original author's code, of course.)
"Nothing" is prob
On 2023-02-02, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Many licenses in the Python world are like: "You can make
> changes, but have to leave in my Copyright notice.".
>
> Would it be possible that the original author could not
> claim a Copyright anymore when code has been changed?
No. If you change someone
Ben Finney wrote:
> songbird writes:
>
>> can i put multiple License lines in setup.py
>> classifiers like: ?
>>
>> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???",
>> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???",
>
> Yes.
>
> The semantics of that are not formalised, to my knowledge. You would be
> si
songbird writes:
> can i put multiple License lines in setup.py
> classifiers like: ?
>
> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???",
> "License :: OSI Approved :: ???",
Yes.
The semantics of that are not formalised, to my knowledge. You would be
signaling that the specified licens
hi,
i'm currently working through all the packaging and
licensing stuff for my project and want to put the
license in the setup.py file, but there may actually
be more than one license (GPL ones for the artwork
i've borrowed from another project and whatever license
i choose to
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Benjamin Schnitzler
wrote:
> By the way: Sorry for posting the statement of Chris Angelico to
> the list, it wasn't meant to be on it.
Apology accepted :) It was off-list mainly because it strayed
off-topic, not because there was anything particularly private in it
On 19:28 Thu 06 Dec , Alister wrote:
> If I understand things correctly this means if you distribute the python
> package (alone or as part of your application) then you need to include
> the detailed section.
>
> if you provide just your own python code & require the user to install
> pyth
ed terminal handling."
>>
>> But also:
>>
>> "Changed in version 1.6: Added support for the ncurses library and
>> converted to a package."
>>
>> Is it maybe built on both libraries? However, the crucial point is,
>> that I want to bui
converted to a package."
>
> Is it maybe built on both libraries? However, the crucial point
> is, that I want to build a curses terminal interface for some GPL
> software project. Can You give me a hint, if that is possible
> (yes, I know, You are no lawyers) and if and where I have to
> include licensing informations regarding the license of
> curses/ncurses ?
>
> Thank You
>
> Benjamin
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
rminal interface for some GPL
software project. Can You give me a hint, if that is possible
(yes, I know, You are no lawyers) and if and where I have to
include licensing informations regarding the license of
curses/ncurses ?
Thank You
Benjamin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 20-4-2010 20:09, Brendan Miller wrote:
Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3
library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused
because I thought python had a more BSD style license.
Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface w
On 4/20/10 3:49 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3
library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused
because I thought p
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
>>
>> Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3
>> library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused
>> because I thought python had a more BSD style licens
On 4/20/10 1:09 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3
library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused
because I thought python had a more BSD style license.
The PSF License is more BSD-styled, yes. The readline module
Python provides a GNU readline interface... since readline is a GPLv3
library, doesn't that make python subject to the GPL? I'm confused
because I thought python had a more BSD style license.
Also, I presume programs written with the readline interface would
still be subject to GPL... might want t
Hi,
As I mentioned on the other thread about samba, I am working on a
synchronisation project and using filecmp.py for comparing files. I
modified it according to my needs and planning to distribute it with my
package. At first glance it seems that filecmp.py is a part of Python
package. Though I d
All,
Can anyone answer my question about the licensing for SocketServer.py?
I would appreciate it.
Kent
-Original Message-
From: Tobias Ivarsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:13 AM
To: Pinegar, Kent T
Subject: Re: [Jython-users] Jython Licensing Question
No
ied Berkeley license, which is considered the most liberal of
> licenses. ... and then the license follows ...
>
> So, if the recipe is in the printed cookbook the licensing is clear
> (primarily you must retain the copyright notice).
The best advice I've found so far is the followi
Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where
> otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under
> the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean
> this licence
project written in
>> python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code,
>> there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to
>> use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that
>> would do the same thing.
>>
use GPLas the license. However, in my code,
> there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to
> use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that
> would do the same thing.
Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except whe
for the book, I'd prefer crediting both, but at least give enough
> so the interested reader can get back to some version of "the original."
>
>
>> 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
>> along with the GPL for my code.
>> Wh
ader can get back to some version of "the original."
> 4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
> along with the GPL for my code.
> What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is
> probably ok. How do others deal with th
acknowledge the source.
4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
along with the GPL for my code.
What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is
probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the
book, it appears that they are saying
Hi. I extracted getpath.c out of Python and modified it to make a
generally useful facility for C and C++ programming. These comments
are at the top of my .c file, and I would like to know if they pass
muster for meeting licensing, copyright, and aesthetics requirements:
// -*- Mode: C; fill
To paraphrase an applicant for a job vacancy we're currently filling when
asked to give an example of their problem solving skills:
A client had a problem with Windows XP on his laptop. I reformatted his hard
disk and installed Red Hat. Problem solved.
--
Dale Strickland-Clark
Riverhall Systems
sturlamolden wrote:
> Maybe someone have gone through the trouble and got a clear answer from
> Microsoft.
As far as companies go the EULA is as clear of an answer as you can
possibly hope for.
As for the original post, don't bother with it this issue, the chances
that MS will start harassing yo
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> As Fredrik Lundh says: Ask your lawyer. We cannot really interpret the
> Microsoft license for you (I can only give it to you in case you don't
> have it), and I can't formally give you permission to do copy something
> that Microsoft has the copyright to.
I wasn't askin
sturlamolden schrieb:
> Is further "distribution" okay if it is only accompanied by the python
> runtime DLL (as is the case when using Py2Exe) or should the entire
> python-2.4.4.msi from python.org be "distributed"?
As Fredrik Lundh says: Ask your lawyer. We cannot really interpret the
Microsoft
sturlamolden wrote:
> I certainly don't understand the EULA, and thus I cannot make sure that
> I lawyer understands it either. But I can certainly find a lawyer that
> charges an hour and pretends to understand it. I am sure buying a
> copy of VC7 is a lot cheaper.
When you buy that copy of
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
I am not intentionally posting FUD.
>"As long as you're using a standard Python build, you don't need to
>buy VC7 to [legally redistribute the C runtime]. The python.org team
>use a properly licensed VC7 to build Python, which turns Python into
>"licensee sof
sturlamolden wrote:
> On Windows, the standard Python 2.4 distro is compiled with Microsoft
> Visual C++ 2003 and is shipped with msvcr71.dll as a part of the binary
> installer. That is ok, as those who has a license for Microsoft Visual
> C++ 2003 is allowed to redistribute msvcr71.dll. With
pilers to key Python developers. That is generous of them. But what
did they say about the crt licensing?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the
>blog entry at
>
> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
>
>noting the fact that thi
Steve Holden
>> It was an April Fool's joke. It's not actually true.
>>
> To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the
> blog entry at
>
> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
>
> noting the f
To try and ensure this thread dies for ever, I have added a note to the
blog entry at
http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
noting the fact that this was indeed an April Fool's joke.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Francisco Reyes wrote:
> Shane Hathaway writes:
>
>>I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython
>>developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof
>>ooutright open source llicenssing?
>
> I disagree with the change. I think Steve Holden is right.
>
Shane Hathaway writes:
> I must saay that i am fully in favor of this change. The ppython
> developerrs need to eat too. Iis no one ellse aware off the perils oof
> ooutright open source llicenssing?
I disagree with the change. I think Steve Holden is right.
1- How do you enforce this?
2- Th
Philippe Martin wrote:
> That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-)
>
Sorry ;-)
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com
--
That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-)
Regards,
Philippe
Steve Holden wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described
> i
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
>recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
> http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
>
>
"walterbyrd" wrote:
> Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog.
the pyfound blog is the official PSF blog; it's linked from the PSF:s
homepage:
http://www.python.org/psf/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steve Holden wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is this an April fool's joke?
> >
> >
> > Did you read the blog entry?
> >
> I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove
> the blog entry just so's nobobdy's t
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Is this an April fool's joke?
>
>
> Did you read the blog entry?
>
I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove
the blog entry just so's nobobdy's tempted to take it seriously.
regards
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
>>recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>>
>> http://pyfound.blog
Grant Edwards a écrit :
> On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
>>recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>>
>> http://py
On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this an April fool's joke?
Did you read the blog entry?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I will invent "TIDY
at BOWL"...
visi.com
Is this an April fool's joke?
Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
ide, I should mention that I have countered the announced
licensing change with a patent application for the use of 3, 4, or 5
spaces as an indent for purposes of establishing a code block. I have
written a tidy little program that will count indent spaces in all
Python programs and expect
Fuzzyman wrote:
>
From the site:
"Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First Object-Oriented
License"
string = "Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First
Object-Oriented License"
for letter in string:
if ord(letter) in range(65,91)
That isn't in the published 2.5 License.
http://docs.python.org/dev/ref/node110.html
Thanks for the scare..
~r
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
>http://pyfound.blogspot.com/200
On 2006-04-01, Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (F) wrote:
>
>>F> Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use
>>F> of a derivative work based on the Python source code ?
>
>>F> Normal applications that use Python, including
On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
>http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-cha
Look at the date.
Worry about this if it is still around tomarrow
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to
> the toy CPU :-)
I think if PSF is going to support porting of Python to "toy" CPUs then
the Digi-Comp should be the first target. This will breathe new life
into these toys which for years have be
Ivan Herman>I would certainly look at *all details* of the
announcement,<
Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to
the toy CPU :-)
(But making strings mutable sounds too much strange).
Bye and thank you,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
I would certainly look at *all details* of the announcement, including
the second line from the top which gives the date:-)
Ivan
Caleb Hattingh wrote:
> WAIT-
>
> Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke?
>
> I have a nasty feeling about this :))
>
> C
>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
> "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (F) wrote:
>F> Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use
>F> of a derivative work based on the Python source code ?
>F> Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard
>F> CPython as an executable, using tools li
WAIT-
Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke?
I have a nasty feeling about this :))
C
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
ership in particular.
>> Users who wish to make commercial
>> use of Python on a royalty-free basis
>> are encouraged to continue using Python 2.4,
>> whose licensing conditions remain the same.
I guess what would happen is that many people will sit on 2.4 for a lot
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
> > As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> > recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
> >
> >http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.h
Steve Holden wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
>http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
>
> I would like to place on
Steve Holden wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
>http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
I must saay that i am fully in f
Steve Holden wrote:
> As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
> recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
>
>http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
>
> I would like to place on
I say good riddence. Python's success has always been on its merits as
an open source application platform. Corprate usage has always been
relatively insignificant, and I suspect that many companies are
overrepresenting the level of dependance they have on python in an
attempt to steer their compet
As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in
http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/python-25-licensing-change.html
I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think
it
Hi,
I've got a question about your python license. For the (lgpl'd) kdewin32 -
layer (some unix functions for kdelibs4/win32) I need a mmap implementation.
Can I use your code within kdewin32-lib? I don't think that the resulting
code will contain a lot of similarities with your code (apart from t
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Xah Lee wrote:
His usual clap trap.
___
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
> software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
> liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
>
Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation
Xah Lee, 2005-07
Dear Programers,
I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its
community.
when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software
Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:05:59 GMT, Roedy Green
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
>quoted someone who said :
>
>>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
>>then the user dumps the power to the machine and end
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :
>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
>reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
robic0 wrote about software liabilities:
> If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
> then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
> reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
> liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished o
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:47:29 +0100, "Martin P. Hellwig"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Xah Lee wrote:
>
>Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
>withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
>the disclaimer says.
Pretty big damned statement there
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:58 +, Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>robic0 wrote:
>
>> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
>> physocopic drugs!
>
>He could be schizophrenic.
>
>Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
>Ray's Timecube:
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
> The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility
> could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure
> I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me.
>
Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is s
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
> Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
> withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
> the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
> Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA
Xah Lee wrote:
Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.
--
robic0 wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Responsible Software Licensing
>&
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
>>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
>
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
are you bawling out robico or X
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> physocopic drugs!
>
Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
Matt
--
http://mai
robic0 wrote:
> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
> physocopic drugs!
He could be schizophrenic.
Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
Ray's Timecube:
http://www.timecube.com/
His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a menti
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:10 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>robic0 wrote:
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>So, at last they found one another. :(
Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
robic0 wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
So, at last they found one another. :(
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Responsible Software Licensing
>
>Xah Lee, 200307
>
>Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
Soft, like your head
>property, that it can be duplicated without cost,
Responsible Software Licensing
Xah Lee, 200307
Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the
invention of computer, the ephemeral non
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:35:58 +0300, Christos Georgiou
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your method is/will_not be free (as in beer), as hinted in
>http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/home/email/registry/Form-Sender01.htm
>. *That* is a drawback similar to the licensing of the Micr
Harlin Seritt wrote:
If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or
BSD.
If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame,
do GPL.
You're kidding, right? How does the BSD license possibly offer more
protection for a commercial program than the GPL does?
--
Leif K-Brooks wrote:
Harlin Seritt wrote:
If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or
BSD.
If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame,
do GPL.
You're kidding, right? How does the BSD license possibly offer more
protection for a commercial program
JanC wrote:
This is difficult to do right, if you have to consider all the laws in
different countries...
Right. So he points out that his explanations are for US copyright law
only, and then that legislation even in different US states, or perhaps
even in districts, might be different. Therefore,
Martin v. Löwis schreef:
> Larry argues that a license should be legally meaningful, and
> legally clear - or else there is little point in formulating
> a license in the first place.
This is difficult to do right, if you have to consider all the laws in
different countries...
--
JanC
"Be str
Ville Vainio wrote:
Daniel> Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the
Daniel> BSD license, or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning
Daniel> towards the BSD since it fits on the screen...
Isn't MIT license even shorter and simpler? A while ago some Debian
guys were speculati
When you ask an opinion, you can expect a long thread list... even if
it's something inane like "What kind of license should I use?"...
hacker/geeks/freaks/wannabes are only too happy to issue an opinion --
warranted or otherwise...
Regards,
Harlin Seritt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listi
If this is for making money, make it either a proprietary license or
BSD.
If you're giving it away and expect nothing for it except maybe fame,
do GPL.
:-)
Regards,
Harlin Seritt
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> "Daniel" == Daniel Keep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Daniel> Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the
Daniel> BSD license, or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning
Daniel> towards the BSD since it fits on the screen...
Isn't MIT license even shorter and simpler? A w
Wow. That was fast. PHP forums eat your heart out :P
Thanks for the advice. I'll probably go with either the BSD license,
or possibly the LGPL. But I'm leaning towards the BSD since it fits on
the screen...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Daniel Keep wrote:
I'm currently working on a Python program, and was wondering if it's
possible to license the program, some associated tools, and a few other
libraries I've written under the Python license.
I had a look at the new PSF Python license on the list of OSI-approved
licenses, but it ma
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
