>>>>> "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 have made a conscious
    FWH> decision not to allow developers to obtain Python and Zope
    FWH> under the terms of the GPL in the belief that this allows
    FWH> people to do "whatever they want" with it does help us
    FWH> evaluate the long-term prospects for these systems in the
    FWH> marketplace.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

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 License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. 
      This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL.

Dual licensing (a la Perl) has practical problems, which have been
raised in other forums, and you really want to avoid it if possible.
Python 2.0.1's license allows Python to be linked with GPL'd software
such as GNU readline.  I don't see what advantages "allowing
developers to obtain Python [...] under the terms of the GPL" would
provide above and beyond that.  Guido (and now, really the PSF) is
clearly not concerned about freeloaders taking of Python and not
contributing back, which is about the only additional thing a GPL
release of Python could prevent.

Any Python module or extension you write can now be legally released
under the GPL and linked with Python.  So if you feel that the GPL
affords your code useful benefits and protections, you now have that
option, whereas under Python 1.6, 2.0, or 2.1 you didn't.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to