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 t
> "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 lib
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.
Fuzzyman 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 ConfigPar
[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
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 t
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
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
""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.
>
>
> "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
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) o
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
_
"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:
-
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
Bill Northcott wrote:
> The build tools: m4 scripts, the configure shell script and the
> Makefiles all contain GPL code and are under GPL.
>
> However, none of this ends up in the 'finished program' which is the
> executable versions of Python and its associated libraries. The build
> tools a
15 matches
Mail list logo
