Bill Northcott wrote:
What makes you think that? I can see no such concession in the
autoconf source distribution. A configure script is built up from lots
of code fragments out of the autoconf and automake M4 files, and would
clearly be covered by GPL.
No. As I just said in the other
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source distribution would contain aclocal.m4; it would not
contain the autoconf/autoheader tools themselves.
To a rather different point, do we need aclocal.m4 at all? This is
the log for aclocal.m4:
Michael Hudson wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
Regards,
Martin
On 1/28/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would be in violation of section 2b) of
the
Martin == Martin v Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW. The argument that the readline module should be GPL
licensed seems rather stronger, it's designed to work with a
GPL-ed library and doesn't work with a BSD licensed work-alike
of that library.
Martin This is the
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Hudson wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you
Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
I did some work to make ctypes+libffi compacter and liberal.
http://openlook.org/svnpublic/ctypes-compactffi/ (svn)
I removed sources/gcc and put sources/libffi copied from gcc 4.0.2.
And removed all automake-related build processes and integrated
them into setup.py.
Terry Reedy wrote:
I think 2.58 actually had a brown-paper-bag release style bug, but
2.59 has been out for ages now. If we were prepared to
AC_PREREQ(2.59), I think this whole issue could go away.
It seems you are right, so I removed the file, and require ac 2.59.
Does this mean that
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
You also need to ask about the cost of defending against a lawsuit by
the FSF, which is both the copyright holder of the library and the
primary advocate of the interpretation that a work which is intended
to be linked with another work is a derivative. I think the
[Martin v. Löwis]
...
Also, I firmly believe that the FSF would *not* sue the PSF, but
instead first ask that the status is corrected.
I'd say that's almost certain. Like any organization with something
fuzzy to protect, the FSF has far more to lose than to gain by daring
a court to rule on
Fuzzyman fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk writes:
In the past there has been some discussion about a new module to replace
ConfigParser. Most notably at
http://wiki.python.org/moin/ConfigParserShootout
[snip]
It would be possible to extend to the ConfigObj API to be backwards
compatible with
On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 19:46 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Barry Warsaw favours Jira as a tracker.
Still do! At at one time the Atlassian folks offered to help us import
the SF tracker data into Jira if we could get a machine readable
(hopefully XML-ish) dump of the current SF tracker data. I
Martin == Martin v Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin So would you just like to see the readline module to be
Martin removed from the Python distribution?
No. I would much prefer that the readline module be made compatible
with libedit (or whatever the pseudo-readline library is
Hye-Shik Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/28/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Heller wrote:
Can anyone of the python-dev core team comment: can we live with the GPL
licensed aclocal.m4 file, in the source distribution and in SVN?
My understanding that doing so would
14 matches
Mail list logo
