Guido van Rossum writes:
> A secondary reasoning for some open source licenses might be to
> prevent others from running off with the good stuff and selling it for
> profit. The GPL is big on that […]
Really, it's not. Please stop spreading this canard.
The GPL explicitly and deliberately grant
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 12:58 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit :
>> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>>
>> > Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be
>> > understandable by non-lawyer people;
>>
>> This is a common mis
Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 12:58 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit :
> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>
> > Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be
> > understandable by non-lawyer people;
>
> This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law systems.
> Licenses
Antoine Pitrou writes:
> Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be
> understandable by non-lawyer people;
This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law systems.
Licenses are written in a formal language intended to have precise
semantics, especially in
Georg Brandl writes:
> I wouldn't say that. strip works well and it does so logically,
> once one understands the DAG. The only thing discouraged is to strip
> changesets once pushed to the public repo, but that holds as well for
> getting rid of the changesets by making a new clone without
Jesse Noller writes:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 12:53, Stephen J. Turnbull
> > wrote:
> >> The point of submodules a la git is subtly different. It is that you
> >> can mix and match *known versions* of the modules. So, eg, in order
Neil Hodgson wrote:
> anatoly techtonik:
>
>> The file consists of several licenses for multiple versions of Python.
>> It is an unusual mix that negatively affects understanding.
>
>A simpler license would be better.
>
>There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python
anatoly techtonik:
> The file consists of several licenses for multiple versions of Python.
> It is an unusual mix that negatively affects understanding.
A simpler license would be better.
There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python
but this would require agreement
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:05:58 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people
> don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think
> of it, and get the answers "BSD style" and "GPL compatible" and are
> happy with that.
Which is
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people
> don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think
> of it, and get the answers "BSD style" and "GPL compatible" and are
> happy with that.
Presumably a
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Normally we don't require contributor agreements for
> minor patches and other submissions, but given the attitude you have
> displayed here, I expect we'll make an exception for you (i.e. until
> you provide evidence of a change of heart by si
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Anatoly, and have
> tried to overlook your general attitude of being somewhat pushy, but
> this has pushed me over the edge. If you had some questions about the
> license, you should have asked
That's now fixed. The time machine disagreed with me.
Georg
Am 05.07.2010 18:28, schrieb Aahz:
> - Forwarded message from Ric Johnson -
>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Ric Johnson
>> Subject: error: 3.2 release schedule has release in Jan 2010.
>> To: webmas..
> Experimenting with the mirror *today* without trying to push changes
> back would give those users a chance to do "familiarization" drills with
> the majority of mercurial's features, with the exception of the final push.
That's true. However, for those users, I'd rather recommend to use hg on
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'd love to see a more detailed description of this, including why
someone new to Mercurial would choose one over the other.
>>> I think someone new to Mercurial shouldn't choose either one.
>>> Just sit back and wait f
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:04, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone.
> I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the
> point, so I can only hope you understand.
>
> I do not think PSF does its job well and here is wh
2010/7/5 anatoly techtonik :
> Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone.
> I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the
> point, so I can only hope you understand.
>
> I do not think PSF does its job well and here is why.
Please contact p...@pyt
Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone.
I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the
point, so I can only hope you understand.
I do not think PSF does its job well and here is why.
1. Python licensing terms are explained poorly
In order to "
- Forwarded message from Ric Johnson -
> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ric Johnson
> Subject: error: 3.2 release schedule has release in Jan 2010.
> To: webmas...@python.org
>
> Hey!
> There's a typo on http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0392/:
>
> Release Schedule
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Tim Golden wrote:
> I had understood (without being able to put my finger on a relevant thread)
> that all comprehensions were going not leak their loop variables in the
> future.
This understanding is correct (with that future being Python 3.x where
all comprehen
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/4/2010 2:31 AM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>>
>>> But Python tests lack coverage stats, so it is hard to say anything.
>>
>> FYI: http://coverage.livinglogic.de/
>
> Turns out the audioop is one of the best covered modules, at 98%
Alas, those are
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/7/4 Benjamin Peterson :
>> On behalf of the Python development team, I'm jocund to announce the second
>> release candidate of Python 2.7.
>
> Arg!!! This should, of course, be "final release".
It wouldn't be a proper Python release
On 05/07/2010 14:12, Tim Golden wrote:
On 05/07/2010 14:06, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
I only noticed now that set/dict comprehensions were backported to 2.7
without letting the loop Variables leak into the surrounding scope. So
they now behave different from list comprehensions. Is this intentio
On 05/07/2010 14:06, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,
I only noticed now that set/dict comprehensions were backported to 2.7
without letting the loop Variables leak into the surrounding scope. So
they now behave different from list comprehensions. Is this intentional
or just a backporting oversight?
I'
Hi,
I only noticed now that set/dict comprehensions were backported to 2.7
without letting the loop Variables leak into the surrounding scope. So they
now behave different from list comprehensions. Is this intentional or just
a backporting oversight?
I'm asking because we had a discussion ab
Hi All,
The documentation for the logging package doesn't include any mention of
unicode.
What's the recommended usage in terms of passing unicode vs encoded strings?
How does this differ from Python 2 to Python 3?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:39:07 am Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> > So, would it still be Python if it folded
>> >
>> > 1 + "1"
>> >
>> > into
>> >
>> > raise TypeError()
>> >
>> > at compile time?
>>
>> It would have to b
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 08:46:57AM +0100, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> >>> On 4 July 2010 17:02, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Now that Python 2.7 is out, I'd like to thank a few of the people who
> made it possible:
> >>>
> >>> And not forgetting Benjamin himself for managing the whole thing!
>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On 4 July 2010 17:02, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Now that Python 2.7 is out, I'd like to thank a few of the people who
made i
29 matches
Mail list logo
