running EuroPython this year.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGnYM3RlyLFUmdhnykGfgD6gNXJYo8zateu9Re_fdNg/edit#
If you have questions around these documents and their content, feel
free to contact us at helpd...@europython.eu.
Sharing our Zoom Webinar and Pro licenses
On 2016-01-10, Cody Piersall wrote:
> It's never a bad idea to consult a lawyer. Since you work for GE, I would
> imagine there is an army of lawyers
That is udoubtedly true.
> happy to answer this question
Whether you can actually get an answer out of any of them within
before the expiry of
Thank you very much for your reply.
Best Regards
From: Cody Piersall [mailto:cody.piers...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 1:43 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Cc: Martinez, Jorge Alberto (GE Aviation)
Subject: Re: licenses
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Martinez, Jorge Alberto (GE
Cody wrote a good and correct answer.
Everyone is going with "lawyers, lawyers, lawyers...". It is not any
lawyer. Most big companies and consulting firms will have lawyers that
are experienced with open source licenses, some that have even fought
against GPL and whatnot. So look for t
ub.com/clade/PyDAQmx)
* Py Visa is MIT licensed (info on their GitHub:
https://github.com/hgrecco/pyvisa/blob/master/LICENSE), which means you can
also use it in your software as long as you include the license.
For summaries of lots of licenses, you can look at tldrlegal.com.
* BSD license: https://
freedom to
> execute, modify, and/or redistribute the work.
Correct.
> So long as the code base you derive from them is also free software, you
> will not need to take special care.
No, not all free software licenses (FSLs) are compatible with each other.
Most notably, not all FS
the project owner and ask him or her to give you a licence to
the work using an approved open source licence:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
- If they use a proprietary, closed-source licence, you probably will
not be allowed to distribute their software, or you may have to pay
them mon
"Martinez, Jorge Alberto (GE Aviation)"
writes:
> We develop applications here with Python and I want to know if there's
> issues by using. We use NumPy, PyDaqMx, Py Visa
Those are all free software: meaning, every recipient has freedom to
execute, modify, and/or redistribute the work. So long a
On 08/01/2016 19:41, Martinez, Jorge Alberto (GE Aviation) wrote:
Hello
We develop applications here with Python and I want to know if there's issues
by using.
We use NumPy, PyDaqMx, Py Visa
How can we cover this licensing?
[copying the answer I've just given over at webmaster@]
I'm not sure
Hello
We develop applications here with Python and I want to know if there's issues
by using.
We use NumPy, PyDaqMx, Py Visa
How can we cover this licensing?
Regards
Jorge Alberto Martinez
GE Aviation Systems
HW Team Manager
GEIQ Power Engineering
T +52 442 456 6446
E jorgealberto.marti...@ge
eGenix.com mxODBC 3.0 Developer Licenses Available
eGenix is pleased to announce the immediate availability of developer
licenses for our
1. You seem to ignore the fact that volunteer teachers exist.
2. I aspire to not repeat history. Esp. history that I don't completely
agree with...
The description I supplied for the license I had in mind was not ready
for your scrutiny, but as somebody else said licensing is less trivial
than we
On Thursday 02 June 2005 01:42 am, poisondart wrote:
> If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
> software licenses,
Yep. We've all been there at some time, though. ;-)
> but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
> isolated case a
max wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially
>>>tries to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives
>>>rights not to the cr
max wrote:
> Perhaps 'attempts' is too strong a word. Maybe 'ends up giving' would
> help my argument more. The best example I can come up with at the
> moment is programmer A releases a project under the gpl. Programmer B
> makes a substantial contribution to the project, which pA reads
> thr
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:08:36PM -, max wrote:
> I guess my argument is that with multiple contributors, the gpl, in
> comparison to say, a BSD style license, grants power to the code. If 3
> people work on a gpl project, they must agree to any changes. If 3
> people work on a BSD style pr
max:
>> For me, the fact
>> that corporations are considered people by the law is ridiculous.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Ridiculous? I don't think so. Take, for example, Acme Inc. Acme purchases
> a new factory. Who owns the factory? The CEO? The Chairperson of the Board
> of Directors? Split in e
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
>
>> This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially
>> tries to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives
>> rights not to the creator of some code, but
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:49:28PM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> Well, the FSF at least thinks that internal use within an organization
> does not constitute distribution.
Well, the problem are contractors. It's very important (for example in
Germany) for a number of legal reasons that contractors a
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:12:18 +, max wrote:
> This is one thing that bothers me about the gpl. It essentially tries
> to create 'code as a legal entity'. That is, it gives rights not to
> the creator of some code, but to the code itself.
Can you please show me where in the GPL it gives righ
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> By law, corporations (and possibly some other organisations)
> *are* people. Not natural people like you or I, but nevertheless
> people. For good or bad, this is the legal fact (or perhaps
> "legal fiction") in most countries
gt;>> specifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to use
>>> the software) under licenses that restrict the rights granted by the
>>> GPL.
>>
>> Well, the FSF at least thinks that internal use within an organization
>> doe
e the end user, and have all the rights granted by the GPL. So
>> they can distribute the software - possibly to your
>> competitors. Employment contracts can't prohibit this, because the GPL
>> specifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to us
tors. Employment contracts can't prohibit this, because the GPL
> specifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to use
> the software) under licenses that restrict the rights granted by the
> GPL.
>
> I don't know whether this would hold water in court.
pecifically disallows "distribution" (allowing your employee to use
the software) under licenses that restrict the rights granted by the
GPL.
I don't know whether this would hold water in court. I'd certainly
hate to be the one responsible for a company finding out the hard way
Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:57:25AM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>>And for thoroughness, allow me to add "even if they have no intention or
>>desire to profit monetarily." I can't explain exactly why this is the
>>case, but it seems to be true in the overwhelming majority
Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 17:52 + schrieb Karl A. Krueger:
> Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *) GPL is not acceptable for "library" stuff, because as a software
> > developer I'm sometimes forced to do "closed" stuff.
> > (Yep, even nowadays there are place where it's b
Andreas Kostyrka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *) GPL is not acceptable for "library" stuff, because as a software
> developer I'm sometimes forced to do "closed" stuff.
> (Yep, even nowadays there are place where it's basically a legal
>requirement.)
I'm curious about this last one.
The G
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:57:25AM -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
> And for thoroughness, allow me to add "even if they have no intention or
> desire to profit monetarily." I can't explain exactly why this is the
> case, but it seems to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.
> Academic projec
Paul Rubin wrote:
> "poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Yes, what I ask may seem ridiculous, but I don't view it that way.
>>Instead, I find that it is the implication of using a restrictive
>>license such as I described to be ridiculous: if there is no monetary
>>gain option in the license
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
> software licenses, but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
> isolated case and I wanted to know if there were others who wanted the
>
If this thread has shown anything it is I'm a bit green with respect to
software licenses, but the other thing is that I consider myself as an
isolated case and I wanted to know if there were others who wanted the
same thing as me.
I'm curious to know what the money that open sourc
On Sunday 29 May 2005 01:52 pm, poisondart wrote:
> With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
> utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
> see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
> software for free--in all the cas
and the project languishes. Having a real Open
Source license, especially one of the copyleft licenses like the GPL,
encourages users to use the code, improve it, and gift the improvements
back to the community.
You end up with a community of people freely contributing their
expertise to the wo
> I'm a little curious about your position.
>
> Though code encodes knowledge (hence the word, of course :-), the
> system of concepts embodied in your code is not the same thing as the
> code itself. Right?
>
> So, firstly, I don't follow your argument there: how does it follow
> from the fact th
poisondart wrote:
> With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
> utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
> see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
> software for free.
I don't think he's trying to make you recons
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I plan to release my programs for academic and pedagogical purposes.
> The knowledge contained in these programs is the same knowledge that
> people use to speak a language--did you buy a copy of the English
> language when you decided to learn it?
>
ieve it's feasible to get contributors to (literally) sign
over their copyright to you, consider dual GPL+commercial licensing.
Trolltech do this very successfully with their Qt GUI framework (they
also have educational licenses too, I believe, though the release of
Qt 4/Win under the GPL will
With the exception of the example with neighbour Bobby (which directly
utilizes my code for profit, in which case is a definite no), I don't
see why your other examples should make me reconsider releasing my
software for free--in all the cases you've described, the answer should
be no.
You publish
Thanks for the replies. They have been very helpful. I'll have to read
through the licenses you've listed in more detail, but the creative
commons license of which James William Pye mentions seems to be what
I'll be using.
The reason why I need people to review my code and also t
program I wrote for review (and critique) and
> testing on other platforms, but also I would like to explore the
> different software licenses that are available (there seems to be
> many). Since the specification for the programs is knowledge-centric
> (related to linguistics), I need a
poisondart wrote:
> Ultimately I desire two things from the license (but not limited to):
> - being able to distribute it freely, anybody can modify it
> - nobody is allowed to make profit from my code (other than myself)
GPL does something like this, except it doesn't forbid anyone to sell
the
ns.org.
The no-commercial use license sounds like it might be what you are looking
for. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"poisondart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> testing on other platforms, but also I would like to explore the
> different software licenses that are available (there seems to be
There is an Open Software Foundation (or something close) wi
g on other platforms, but also I would like to explore the
different software licenses that are available (there seems to be
many). Since the specification for the programs is knowledge-centric
(related to linguistics), I need a group of people that are
knowledgeable in this area. Is there a place w
45 matches
Mail list logo
