"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
>
> With respect to Python, the issue has been hashed to death over in
> c.l.py and other forums, so I think this will be my last post on the
> subject here. IMO, the Python 2.0.1 license is the best of all
> possible worlds. In the words of the FSF themselves:
>
> The
> "FWH" == Fred Wilson Horch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FWH> But it would be nice to hear what Guido thinks, and what
FWH> Digital Creation thinks.
I won't speak on behalf of DC, but I'll bet Guido is pretty tired of
talking about it. :)
FWH> Knowing that the copyright holders
On 22 Jun 2001, Simon Michael wrote:
> Now here, I have to assume RMS is using "combine" above to mean
> "combine and redistribute".
>
> I hope I'm right ? If "combine" included "install zwiki on your zope
> installation and use it" then everything I know is wrong.. I did
> intend for that to b
On 22 Jun 2001, Simon Michael wrote:
> Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> One of the consequences being that someone re-distributing zope &
> >> zwiki together, under their default licenses, is technically in
> >> violation right now, I think we are all agreeing.
> >
> > Technically
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:16:04PM -0400, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> I think you're right. The reaction to the Python license becoming GPL
> compatible wasn't as enthusiastic as I expected, though.
Are you talking about the reactions on Slashdot.org? The reactions there
were exactly as to be expec
On 22 Jun 2001 09:33:22 -0700, Simon Michael wrote:
> Thanks for a most illuminating thread. Slight clarification to a
> comment of yours Shane -
>
> Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > GPL code together. ZWiki is just in a strange position because the
> > GPL is not actually in effec
