On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:27:14 -0400
Terry Reedy wrote:
> > First of all, I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I'm not lawyer.
> >
> > You can use both of GPL and MIT. Users can use your package under it.
> >
> > On the other hand, when you publish your package, *you* should follow
> > PSF license.
> > Read
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/11/2019 10:54 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
>
> >> Hello,
> >> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup
> shutil.copy*() functions:
> >> https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
> >> https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
>
> You retain c
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 05:32:35PM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> If you might want some of this contributed back to Python later on, you
> should not use the GPL.
Giampaolo can always change the licence of his work later. You can't
take away the GPL from work you've already released, but you
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:55 PM Giampaolo Rodola'
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:01 AM Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*()
>> functions:
>> https://bugs.pyth
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:01 AM Glenn Linderman
wrote:
> On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
> Hello,
> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*()
> functions:
> https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
> https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
> I would like to b
On 3/11/2019 10:54 PM, Inada Naoki wrote:
Hello,
some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*()
functions:
https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
You retain copyright on the code you contributed.
I would like to backport both functio
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:38 AM Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
>
> Hello,
> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*()
> functions:
> https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
> https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
> I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can b
Things in the standard library are already covered by the PSF license so
that is what should be kept on backports from the stdlib to earlier
versions.
I do recommend keeping your backported stuff and new functionality separate
(separate packages ideally, but that'll depend on how intertwined thing
On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
Hello,
some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup
shutil.copy*() functions:
https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can be used
on Python 2.7
Hello,
some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*()
functions:
https://bugs.python.org/issue33671
https://bugs.python.org/issue33695
I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can be used on
Python 2.7 and <3.8 and put it on PYPI. In order to do so I wil
On Feb 06, 2016, at 04:38 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>Right, sure. The technical problems are still there. Although I'm
>fairly confident that Debian's binaries would correspond to Debian's
>source - but honestly, if I'm looking for sources for anything other
>than the kernel, I probably want to ge
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> However, the technical problem remains. For example, you mention
> Debian. While Debian keeps its source and binary packages very close
> to "in sync" on the server, there are several gotchas. For example,
> Debian does not restrict i
Chris Angelico writes:
> And even the GPL doesn't require you to distribute the source along
> with every copy of the binary. As long as the source is *available*,
> it's acceptable to distribute just the binary for convenience.
True (and it would apply to frozen Python as long as the source
i
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Of course if *you* want to you can GPL Python (I think that's now
> possible, at one time there was a issue with the CNRI license IIRC),
> and then licensees of *your* distribution (but not you!) are required
> to distribute source.
And
Executive summary:
There is no licensing issue because Python isn't copyleft. Stick to
the pragmatic *technical* issue of how to reliably provide
corresponding source to those who want to look at that source (just
because that's how we do things in Python).
Emile van Sebille writes:
> Except f
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>> For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has
>>> submitted (e.g. pgen2), that's actually come in under Goo
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has
>> submitted (e.g. pgen2), that's actually come in under Google's
>> contributor agreement, rather than Guido's person
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has
> submitted (e.g. pgen2), that's actually come in under Google's
> contributor agreement, rather than Guido's personal one. Presumably
> that was work he did on company time, so
Terry Reedy wrote:
> Comment on trust. Trust works both ways. So does distrust.
>
> Asking contributors to give written licenses in addition to the license
> implicit in the act of contribution is an act of distrust. It says
> something like "We worry that you might change you mind and sue, and a
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> 1. Python License
>
> If there is not already, could there be an explanatory note, something like
> (worded to be 'neutral':
As a sub-point, I'd like to see something short explaining how the
different licenses in the LICENSE file are meat to
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Asking contributors to give written licenses in addition to the license
> implicit in the act of contribution is an act of distrust. It says something
> like "We worry that you might change you mind and sue, and a court might not
> immediately t
I think there are a couple of potential action items that have come out
of the discussion.
1. Python License
If there is not already, could there be an explanatory note, something
like (worded to be 'neutral':
"The Python License is complicated because Python has been developed at
various t
On Jul 6, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> You've never used Apple's much-missed Hypertalk, have you? :)
on mailingListMessage
get the message
put it into aMessage
if the thread of aMessage contains license wankery
put aMessage into the trash
I stand corrected. Thanks for the pointer Stephen!
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> LD 'Gus' Landis writes:
> > Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to
> > make MacOS X a completely proprietary product.
>
> That's simply not true.
> http://www.opensour
LD 'Gus' Landis writes:
> Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to
> make MacOS X a completely proprietary product.
That's simply not true.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1064/.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pytho
On 7/5/2010 8:03 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
Neil Hodgson wrote:
There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python
but this would require agreement from the current rights owners
including CWI and CNRI. IIRC not all of the rights owners are willing
to agree to a change.
That
On 7/5/2010 11:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
The point of free software licenses, though (as opposed to proprietary
licenses), is not mainly to go to court (to “protect IP”, as the PSF
says - quite naively in my opinion); it is to enable trust among people.
Yes, that is true. Open source license
Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to
make MacOS X a completely proprietary product. The BSD
license allows you to take and never release your mods. It
has very little to do with money, IMO.
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Nir Aides writes:
>
>> I take "...ru
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:58:26 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Licenses are written in a formal language intended to have
> > precise semantics, especially in the event of a dispute going to
> > court. What you wrote is precisely analogous to "a computer program
> >
Jesse Noller writes:
> The Python / PSF license won't be changing anytime soon.
The existing license for Python suits me fine.
> Ben could have just have easily responded to Guido in private if he
> felt that strongly.
No. I responded in the same forum where the falsehood was put forth, to
cor
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:58:26 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Virgil Dupras wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> That's the point: selling, and commercial activity in general, is
>> explicitly encouraged and permission granted by the GPL. Too many people
>> speak as though it were otherwise. To thos
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> That's the point: selling, and commercial activity in general, is
> explicitly encouraged and permission granted by the GPL. Too many people
> speak as though it were otherwise. To those who do: Please stop.
>
Please, GPL advocates also spread
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:10:09AM +0300, Nir Aides wrote:
> I take "...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit" to mean
> "creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code" which
> you
> can not do with GPL licensed code. Also, while the GPL does not prevent
Nir Aides writes:
> I take "...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit" to
> mean "creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code"
> which you can not do with GPL licensed code.
It's the “proprietary“ which is the distinguishing criterion there. The
“sellin
I take "...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit" to
mean "creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code"
which you can not do with GPL licensed code. Also, while the GPL does not
prevent selling copies for profit it does not make it very practical either.
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
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
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 "
49 matches
Mail list logo
