> Out of curiosity, wasn't there some musing earlier that people shouldn't be > mirroring PyPI data in a commercial context? Or at least should offer some > kind of opt-out?
I personally don't object to such activities, as long as the offering is not misleading (e.g. by suggesting that you have to pay for software that is actually available for free as well). I'd rather see the free market decide on the fate of such services. In the specific case, the service being offered apparently is to provide prebuilt packages. Denying such a service would be unfair, IMO, as other companies/organizations are also allowed to distribute Python packages, often in a repackaged form (e.g. Ubuntu packages or the Enthought distribution). Of course, it would be the responsibility of the distributor of such a repackaging to comply to the respective licenses of each package. Using the metadata, this might still be possible in an automated manner. If authors feel that their licensing conditions are violated, they should contact ActiveState and ask for corrections. OTOH, I'm not surprised by opposition to this kind of service, since people might mistake the web pages as suggesting that you actually need to use pypm to install the respective packages - when this is actually only needed to install the PyPM build, and you might well get around installing it just as easily in a different form. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
