The contract is described here: http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22
I just recently learned that viral licenses like GPL can be a huge
pain. They also did a lot of good though, allowing us to still have
free choice of software on most routers for example. But especially
for things like py.test, companies tend to avoid contributing or
extending for understandable reasons. A very permissive license is
much better for that imo.
my understanding is, MPL is non-viral, it does not infect other code,
it
only applies to the code itself and vendor-ed copies.
in Fact its per design even weaker than LGPL, since it allows
inclusion
without viral extension.
The first thing I see in the above link is the License which directly
refers to the GPL.
http://hintjens.com/blog:106
I found myself agreeing with those 2 items, as well as a lot of the
followup of the zguide.
I don't like this approach at all.
can you pinpoint what about the approach strikes you?
i find it practical, since upon reflection i realized it pretty
much works effectively against various of my own biases/mistakes and
mis-behaviours.
In particular wrt value judgments.
would it help if i created a more detailed blog post about my
findings?
The point about value judgments might be right. But just merging every
pull request without review just creates more work. Personally in my
projects, I look at test outcomes and do a quick review of what is being
done. Based on that I decide whether I merge and just fix any problems
myself, or whether I ask for a followup.
Regards,
Florian Schulze
_______________________________________________
pytest-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
