> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert > O'Connor > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Plucker Desktop MSW Installer available > > > > I don't know much about ActiveState Python since it isn't > > > Free software. > > > > It is, more or less. > > http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActivePython/license_agreement.plex > > This is probably where they lost their Free Software badge, > with prevention of redistribution of an improved version: > > "You may not distribute copies of this Package, or copies of > packages derived from this Package, to others outside your > organization without specific prior written permission from > ActiveState."
That doesn't bother me. If I release a distribution of something under my copyright, I may well provide source and encourage sharing, but I'll want my copyrights honored, and if people _do_ make neat hacks to it, I'll want them submitted to me for inclusion (with proper credits) in the next release. I'll take a dim view of folks releasing modified versions of my distribution without asking me, especially if they claim it as thier own work. As I read it, you are welcome to grab and share the source. What you _cannot_ do _as an organization_ is to distribute copies _outside_ of your organization. I see nothing in the liscense that prevents me, as an _individual_, from giving _you_ a copy of the package. Whatever I do, I must keep attributions and copyright notices intact. Essentially, ActiveState claims a "compilation copyright", and lets you know they will enforce thier rights under it. It isn't the GPL, but I've seen worse liscenses. And the GPL is the source of a _lot_ of confusion, with the most typical questions being "Must I distribute source _with_ my application?" (No, but you must make the source that will build the version of the application you distribute available in a manner convenient to the end-user, and you must _tell_ the end-user you will do so.), and "Can I use tools produced under the GPL to create non-GPLed programs I plan to sell, or does the use of the tools automatically make my code GPLed?" (No. Your code is only GPLed if you link against code that is.) > But your recommendation to allow selection of python engine > is a very good one regardless what ActiveState does with licenses It doesn't have to be ActiveState. It could be a distribution from Python.org. But if a version of python already exists that will do the job, I see no reason for Plucker to install one as well. > (I do miss their neo-socialist propaganda images on their website > headers). I found that amusing, too. > There should be a capacity to pick the python engine, even if it makes > support more difficult. I guess this would be: > [ ] Selectable option to do/do not install python on the installer. > [ ] Use the path to python key in the .ini to pick the python engine. Ask the user if they have Python already, and where it lives. If they say yes and provide a location, do a version check to make sure they've got a recent enough distribution to do the job. If they do, use it. > Is there any other aspects to be done for this? Perhaps this > could wait until after 1.2 though. I can wait as far as I'm concerned. My only beef was "Wait a minute. I already _have_ Python installed, and a newer version than the one distributed with Plucker! Why does Plucker insist on installing its own version?" Things that need the Java Runtime Environment, for example, generally will detect an existing JRE release and offer to use it. It would be nice if Plucker did that for Python. > Best wishes, > Robert ______ Dennis _______________________________________________ plucker-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
