Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > if I owned a company making profit on software sales (sale =! > > support) you sign a death wish for using GPL > > Apart from Microsoft, and possibly Quark (makers of Quark Express desktop > packaging software), and perhaps a few console game develop

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Rubin writes: > With the GPL, you get a slight restriction from the GPL author (you're > not allowed to redistribute the binary unless you offer source). Forgot to add: and under the GPL, you must not threaten to have the goverment clobber people for redistributing

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you want me to agree that the GPL puts more conditions on distribution > than the MIT/BSD licence, then I'll happily agree. If you want me to > describe that as a "restrictive licence", then I refuse. With the GPL, you get a slight restriction from

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Thanks for going beyond the call of duty to research the facts in such You're welcome! Like most amateur investors, I kid myself that research makes my stock picks better (considering the tiny amounts one actually invests, I doubt that any dolla

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Fine. If you want to take rights away from the people you redistribute > > somebody else's software to, then the GPL is not for you. > > the people you distribute somebody else's open source software to > still have the same rights to that software

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:39:13 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > >> The software was sold in 3 separates modules requiring a yearly renewal, > > The software is hardly sold if you have to renew that "sale" every year. > That's more like a lease. I'd call it revenue from li

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:39:13 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > The software was sold in 3 separates modules requiring a yearly renewal, The software is hardly sold if you have to renew that "sale" every year. That's more like a lease. I'd call it revenue from licencing, not revenue from sales.

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > (Kids! Pirating software is stealing!!!) Or evaluating, depending of how you look at it. -- Sincerely, |http://bos.hack.org/cv/ Rikard Bosnjakovic | Code chef - will cook for food --

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:54:24 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote: >> My understanding is that both Oracle and SAP make most of their money >> through consulting and customization rather than licencing or sales. I > > Have you checked their quarterly statements recently? Obviously not. Thanks for going

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:18:44 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >> So that's the basis of the disagreement. I'm using "restriction" with >> the intent of communicating it's normal english meaning, > Your meaning is about as far from the plain English sense of "r

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:18:44 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > The GPL is *not* such a license - it places > restrictions on the redistribution. Which is what I said in the first > place. If you want me to agree that the GPL puts more conditions on distribution than the MIT/BSD licence, then I'll happil

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:46:15 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> But if you *do* redistribute it, then you must live up to conditions in >>> the licence. If you aren't willing to do that, use software with a >>> d

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > > I think you are over-estimating both the numbers and profitability of such > niche software distributors, and misunderstanding the business models of > them. Coincidently, I worked at a software company making a "standard" administration software for primary school

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > >> Apart from Microsoft, and possibly Quark (makers of Quark Express desktop > >> packaging software), and perhaps a few console game developers, is there > >> any company making a profit on software sales? > > > > I believe Oracle is doing fine

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Fine. If you want to take rights away from the people you redistribute > somebody else's software to, then the GPL is not for you. the people you distribute somebody else's open source software to still have the same rights to that software as you have. GPL or not GPL do

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:46:15 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But if you *do* redistribute it, then you must live up to conditions in >> the licence. If you aren't willing to do that, use software with a >> different licence. > > That's a restriction on r

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:26:30 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:43:22 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: >> >>> if I owned a company >>> making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish >>> for using GPL >> >> Apart from Micro

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On 2005-11-26, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > If you don't like that clause, you have two very simple options: don't > redistribute the GPLed software. Or use some other software provided under > a different licence. There is a third option: persuade the owner of the copyright to give you a di

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:43:22 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > >> if I owned a company >> making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish >> for using GPL > > Apart from Microsoft, and possibly Quark (makers of Quark Express desktop > packaging s

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:26:38 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > >> BSD/MIT style license is a >> good substitute of no license at all. > > But that's not true: "no licence at all" means that nobody has the right > to use or copy or even *see* your work. You can, of course

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But if you *do* redistribute it, then you must live up to conditions in > the licence. If you aren't willing to do that, use software with a > different licence. That's a restriction on redistribution. > The only restriction is that you can't give th

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:54:55 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:29 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >> The GPL doesn't restrict distribution. I don't understand where >> people get this bizarre view of the GPL from.> > > It happens because

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:25:58 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> Python and *BSD are getting far less volunteer development love than, >> say, GCC or Linux, and the licensing is at least part of the reason. > > I disagree. I believe *BSD gets less volunteer

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:17:15 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:43:22 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: >> >> > if I owned a company >> > making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish >> > for using GPL >>

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:43:22 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > > > if I owned a company > > making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish > > for using GPL > > Apart from Microsoft, and possibly Quark (makers of Quark Expres

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:29 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > I believe in GPL'ed software - I use it regularly. On the other hand, > > I don't believe that it represents the best license to release > > software if the goal is to improve the lot of human

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:17:43 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > Whereas including > one line of GPL code into your 10,000,000,000 line project can have > disasterous consequences (which I find ridiculous) If you think that's disastrous, just try using one line of proprietary code in your 10,000,000,000 li

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Rubin wrote: > Python and *BSD are getting far less volunteer development love than, > say, GCC or Linux, and the licensing is at least part of the reason. I disagree. I believe *BSD gets less volunteer development because of some legal wrangling in the early 90s t

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you don't like the GPL, then by all means, *do not use GPL code !* > > Please, I mean, when you use without authorisation some code in your > project, you are in trouble, no matter what licence the code was using. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:34:32 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > Because I think a lot of well meaning software developers writing free > software don't performance due diligence to determine the true > motivation behind, and the chilling effect of, the GPL. It took me seconds, seconds I say, to open a web

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:26:38 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > BSD/MIT style license is a > good substitute of no license at all. But that's not true: "no licence at all" means that nobody has the right to use or copy or even *see* your work. You can, of course, choose to show them your work wit

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:29 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > The GPL doesn't restrict distribution. I don't understand where > people get this bizarre view of the GPL from.> It happens because people say things like: > If you don't like that clause, you ha

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:29 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > I believe in GPL'ed software - I use it regularly. On the other hand, > I don't believe that it represents the best license to release > software if the goal is to improve the lot of humanity. The > restrictions are on "distribution", not on

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:43:22 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > if I owned a company > making profit on software sales (sale =! support) you sign a death wish > for using GPL Apart from Microsoft, and possibly Quark (makers of Quark Express desktop packaging software), and perhaps a few console

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think free software/open source has existed long enough and with > enough varied licenses (GPL, LGPL, modified LGPL (see wxWidgets), BSD, > X11, MIT, Apache, etc.) that we'd basically know without question if > less restritive licenses (like BSD) were causi

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ed Jensen wrote: > [On proprietary ports of Python...] >> Show me the harm done. > We'll have to wait and see what happens. There's a risk that versions > of Python with different semantics or characteristics to the original > could cause the development

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen a écrit : >>Well, despite your protestations, I think the GPL and LGPL are fairly >>easy and safe choices for a lot of developers who know enough about >>Free Software (ie. haven't just seen the name and thought "that's the >>thing for me"), know what the characteristics of those licences

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We'll have to wait and see what happens. There's a risk that versions > of Python with different semantics or characteristics to the original > could cause the development of parallel communities, instead of > everyone working on/with the same project. The "

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen wrote: [On proprietary ports of Python...] > Show me the harm done. We'll have to wait and see what happens. There's a risk that versions of Python with different semantics or characteristics to the original could cause the development of parallel communities, instead of everyone worki

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Rubin writes: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On the other hand, so long as the price is lower than the cost of >> recreating the software for someone, then it's better for society as >> a whole if it exists at all. > I don't think that's correct. Having

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the other hand, so long as the price is lower than the cost of > recreating the software for someone, then it's better for society as > a whole if it exists at all. I don't think that's correct. Having nothing can be better than having something, becaus

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: > >> Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But >> software "unavailable to those who can't afford it" is better than "no >> software at all" > That I do not agree with, I think it depends on which your side of

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote: > > Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But > software "unavailable to those who can't afford it" is better than "no > software at all" That I do not agree with, I think it depends on which your side of the fence you are. For instance I have a specific

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Those who can not afford the software are excluded for that end > product even though they may have worked on the source where 99,99% of > the restricted licensed software is based on. Well, they chose to make it available to others for reuse. But

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote: > > Is that software really unavailable, or just unavailable for free? If > the latter, then it's not unavailabe. If the former, the it didn't > become unavailable, as it was never available in the first place. > In the latter case, you could also use those examples to similarly

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I >>> understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP >>> especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the ac

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote: > "Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I >> understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP >> especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic >> scene. > > Your comment

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If the non-techie is still interested, I'll rave on about that I > understand why GPL is a good way to ensure availability of IP > especially if the software is a collaborated effort in the academic > scene. Your comment about the GPL "ensuring ava

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

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 Eu

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I meant the SCO saga, don't know if you are referring the same thing. Probably. MS bought some shares from SCO to help financing the lawsuit. Anyway, I don't see much people worrying about it and in fact, I see more people laughing about SCO's

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Peter Hansen wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for > >>the linux kernel. > > > > What is happening for the Linux kernel? > > The confidence of some of its (potentia

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for >>the linux kernel. > > What is happening for the Linux kernel? The confidence of some of its (potential? gullible?) users in their abili

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:26:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As for the liability, that is for sure, withness what is happening for > the linux kernel. What is happening for the Linux kernel? -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I'm FREE to use the software, FREE to redistribute it, FREE to give it > away, FREE to make derivative works, FREE to transfer the licence, *and* > I got it FREE of cost as well, but that doesn't make it free. > Indeed, when I explain GPL to non-techies and what their (

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steve Holden wrote: > The thrust of my original remarks was to try to persuade the OP that the > original comment about changing the code was ingenuous. If you take some > code under license as a starting point then even if no line of code > remains unchanged at the end of the process your code

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > > >>The thrust of my original remarks was to try to persuade the OP that the >>original comment about changing the code was ingenuous. If you take some >>code under license as a starting point then even if no line of code >>remains unchanged at th

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Mike Meyer wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Steve Holden wrote: > >> Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at the end of > >> your project, if you start out with a piece of source code lifted from > >> wxPython then what you have created is definitely a

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Holden wrote: >> Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at the end of >> your project, if you start out with a piece of source code lifted from >> wxPython then what you have created is definitely a "derivative work" >> and, as

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > >>Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at the end of >>your project, if you start out with a piece of source code lifted from >>wxPython then what you have created is definitely a "derivative work" >>and, as such, you must take int

Re: [OT] Enough! [was: wxPython Licence vs GPL]

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Robert Kern wrote: > >>Take your off-topic argument off-list. > > You don't think questions of the legality of when and > how you can write and distribute Python programs are of > interest to Python developers? The OP's question certainly was on-topic. The argument ove

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steve Holden wrote: > Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at the end of > your project, if you start out with a piece of source code lifted from > wxPython then what you have created is definitely a "derivative work" > and, as such, you must take into account the wxPython licens

Re: [OT] Enough! [was: wxPython Licence vs GPL]

Robert Kern wrote: > Take your off-topic argument off-list. You don't think questions of the legality of when and how you can write and distribute Python programs are of interest to Python developers? Fair enough I suppose. Who cares what the licences say, we're all just going to break them an

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen wrote: > Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>It's interesting that you bring this tired thought experiment up in the >>context of the original remark: "Its license is far more "free" than >>GPL is." If we were focusing on the "vox pop" interpretation of the >>word "free", that re

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Really? So when I take my GPLed software, and legally install it on > 100 PCs without paying one single cent for licence fees, it isn't free of > cost? > > You a living in a strange and mysterious world, where things that cost > nothing aren't free. Many definitions of "c

[OT] Enough! [was: wxPython Licence vs GPL]

Take your off-topic argument off-list. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Grow up, Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's interesting that you bring this tired thought experiment up in the > context of the original remark: "Its license is far more "free" than > GPL is." If we were focusing on the "vox pop" interpretation of the > word "free", that remark wouldn't make any

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:34:49 +, Ed Jensen wrote: > Try this little experiment: Walk up, at random, to 100 people on the > street. Show them a software CD-ROM -- a game, a word processor, > whatever. Tell them it's free. Then ask them what they think that > means. > > 99 times out of 100, t

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:33:24 + Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether or not some fragments of code remain unchanged at > the end of your project, if you start out with a piece of > source code lifted from wxPython then what you have > created is definitely a "derivative work" and

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:57:12 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote: > > I would, at the very least, acknowledge the wxPython origin of the code > > whether any remains or not (credit is appreciated and cheap to give). > > Ha ha, don't ask movie director James Cameron about *that

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Ed Jensen wrote: > Try this little experiment: Walk up, at random, to 100 people on the > street. Show them a software CD-ROM -- a game, a word processor, > whatever. Tell them it's free. Then ask them what they think that > means. It's interesting that you bring this tired thought experiment u

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

John Perks and Sarah Mount wrote: > we have some Python code we're planning to GPL. However, bits of it were > cut&pasted from some wxPython-licenced code to use as a starting point > for implementation. It is possible that some fragments of this code > remains unchanged at the end. > Whether or n

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:57:12 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote: >>I would, at the very least, acknowledge the wxPython origin of the code >>whether any remains or not (credit is appreciated and cheap to give). > >... In this world where ideas are thought to be property (if

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be "free as in freeloading", right? (And no, I'm not > intending to start a licensing flame war with that remark, but I think > it's inappropriate to ignore central licensing concepts such as > end-user freedoms, and then to make sweeping statemen

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Andrea Gavana wrote: > IIRC, wxPython license has nothing to do with GPL. Its license is far more > "free" than GPL is. That would be "free as in freeloading", right? (And no, I'm not intending to start a licensing flame war with that remark, but I think it's inappropriate to ignore central licens

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"John Perks and Sarah Mount" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > we have some Python code we're planning to GPL. However, bits of it were > (This assumes the wxPython Licence is compatible with the GPL -- if not, > do we just cosmetically change any remaining lines, so n

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

"John Perks and Sarah Mount" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How should we refer to this in terms of copyright statements and bundled > Licence files? Is there, say, a standard wording to be appended to the > GPL header in each source file? Does the original author need to be > named as one of the c

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:57:12 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote: > I would, at the very least, acknowledge the wxPython origin of the code > whether any remains or not (credit is appreciated and cheap to give). Ha ha, don't ask movie director James Cameron about *that*. On the basis of a throw-away

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

John Perks and Sarah Mount wrote: [Andrea Gavan wrote:] >>IIRC, wxPython license has nothing to do with GPL. Its license is far > more >>"free" than GPL is. If you want to create commercial apps with > wxPython, you >>can do it without messing with licenses. > > This isn't a commercial app thoug

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

> IIRC, wxPython license has nothing to do with GPL. Its license is far more > "free" than GPL is. If you want to create commercial apps with wxPython, you > can do it without messing with licenses. This isn't a commercial app though, it's for a research project and apparently it's a requirement t

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

John Perks and Sarah Mount wrote: > we have some Python code we're planning to GPL. However, bits of it were > cut&pasted from some wxPython-licenced code to use as a starting point > for implementation. It is possible that some fragments of this code > remains unchanged at the end. Well, you coul

Re: wxPython Licence vs GPL

Hello John & Sarah, > (This assumes the wxPython Licence is compatible with the GPL -- if not, > do we just cosmetically change any remaining lines, so none remain from > the orignal?) IIRC, wxPython license has nothing to do with GPL. Its license is far more "free" than GPL is. If you want to cr

wxPython Licence vs GPL

we have some Python code we're planning to GPL. However, bits of it were cut&pasted from some wxPython-licenced code to use as a starting point for implementation. It is possible that some fragments of this code remains unchanged at the end. How should we refer to this in terms of copyright statem