Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

Python Now GPL compatible 168

Posted by michael from the stallman-rejoices dept.
Shane Hathaway writes: "I'm sure the slashdot readership will be happy to learn that Python is now compatible with the GPL. It's a bugfix for Python 2.0 but a similar release is planned for Python 2.1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Python Now GPL compatible More

Python Now GPL compatible

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Why? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In case the author gets hit by a bus for example. The end users are protected somewhat by fact of the code being available, and modifications being legally possible. For example IPF is under a license where you must get Darren Reed's approval to maky source code modifications. If he dies tommorow and his estate decides to sell IPF to a company all the IPF users may be up the creek without a paddle.

  • Re:If you haven't tried Python... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, but it also enables some of the more powerful features of the language - e.g. "tagging" an object with your own variables. YMMV.
  • You got it! GPL is just as valid a license as a Microsoft license. Why should we "like" a Microsoft license versus a GPL license? Well, first off, the Microsoft license requires that we give Microsoft many rights and monies.

    The GPL does not.

    Plus, the GPL license prohibits someone like Microsoft from stealing code and making it part of their product. Clearly, the Microsoft license is very similar in this regard.

    So hurray for Python, by permitting me to look and modify their code, but for not having a requirement to hand of rights and cash to Dr. Gates.

  • Re:TV sucks ass (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes you a better person. It's not like you throw out your TV and suddenly lose two hundred pounds and have an urge to talk about the situation in the mideast. Non-ownership of a TV is typically a hallmark of a particular breed of person, but that doesn't imply a causality. Saying it does is extremely close to post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    The only thing not owning a TV really assures is that you rank close to last when people are trying to decide whose house they should go to for movie night. Unless you own a projector, but you get the idea.

    I myself don't own a TV, but like many other geeks here, the internet is my substitute. I also have an ASUS video card w/ video in, so I can play console-based games when frustrated with coding.

    Am I a better person than I would be without a TV? That's hard to say. I can say with conviction that it makes relating to my peers difficult:

    Them: "Hey, did you catch South Park last night?!"

    Me: "Uhm, no, I don't own a TV."

    Them: "Oh, that's right. I'm sorry."

    Me: "I don't have cable either."

    Them: "Sorry."

    Mostly they think I'm poor. Come to think of it, I am poor. wtf.

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Please explain to me why everything has to be "GPL-compatible"? Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus to invade? Or is this another example of Slashdot selfishness; "gimme gimme gimme!"

  • Re:Happy? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Shut up. RMS doesn't force anyone to anything. People feel the pressure 'cause there's plenty of good software under GPL, and GPL incompatible software are locked out.


    Personally I'm a little tired of hearing about people bashing RMS & GNU & GPL without realizing the purpose and ideals behind it all.


    Go read some GNU! GNU is about changing society, not just sourcecode, that is opensource.

  • The Truth About The Python 2.0.1 License (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Python is not and never will be released under the GPL. It has always been the intention that you can take Python and do whatever you want with it, including modifying it and sticking it in your closed, proprietary, $$$ system. You can also use it for your open source system, or anything in between. The new license changes none of that.

    What has changed with the 2.0.1 license is the ability to legally link Python with other totally unrelated GPL-covered software. For example, you cannot legally distribute a binary of Python 2.0 linked with the GNU readline library. That sucks. But now it is legal to link Python 2.0.1 with readline and distribute that binary. That rocks.

  • Re:He must be completly wrong (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The use of BSD stack in Windows and the existence of several proprietary versions of X and Apache are just some examples of freedom lost by users because of the license used.

    Well, actually, that's the thing. It's tough to claim that "users" are all programmers.

    Personally, i'm much more interested in seeing the BSD stack used by Windows than in forcing MS to reinvent the wheel. The more reimplimentations there are, the more opportunities for bugs and exploits.

    If the first, and for some time, the only license that guarantees that users will have freedom to use, adapt, copy and redistribute, any free software license should be compatible with it, right ?

    My software is free because it can be used by anyone for anything. Python's license was free, but allowed some additional protection for the corporate lawyers (no additional freedom, mind you, just additional "can't blame us"-ness).

    I don't have a problem with RMS having principles and not betraying them. I do have a problem with pressure being put on an already free product to conform to an ideal that the author of that product doesn't share.

    --
    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

  • it gets more free software (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, 2001 @08:01PM (#149864)
    Without the GPL, there would be no gcc Objective C port. Period. NeXT made a patch to gcc and claimed (proprietary) ownership of it. GNU said "if you want to use our code, you must afford us the same courtesy. Either make gcc Objective C free, or make your own fucking compiler". NeXT knew they could not win against GNU in court, and didn't have the resources/skillz to make a compiler, and, voila, they released the Objective C patch under the GPL.

    I'm sure there are more examples, but the NeXT/gcc one is the most famous.

  • A story about Monty Python and then the Python language on the same day? I know you can never have enough python of any sort, but lets save any more of them for tommorow ok?
  • "For example, you cannot legally distribute a binary of Python 2.0 linked with the GNU readline library. That sucks. But now it is legal to link Python 2.0.1 with readline and distribute that binary."

    Um, no. The GNU readline library is GPL'd, which means that all programs which link to it must be GPL'd since they are considered "derived works" of GNU readline. Not even a program under the BSD-ish X license, which is GPL-compatible, can link to a GPL'd library.

    What the license change to Python 2.0.1 means is that GPL'd programs can link to Python and use it as an embedded interpreter. Considering that a sizeable body of GPL'd software had linked to Python before it had become GPL-incompatible, the return of GPL compatibility is a Good Thing(TM).
  • here [www.amk.ca] is what keeps me from taking python seriously. this isnt like perl where you can take a really old script and still run it. if you could do something like

    #!/usr/local/bin/python-1.5.2

    for some scripts and

    #!/usr/local/bin/python-2.1

    for others than maybe this could work if the different versions of python are treated like differnt languages that just happen to resemble eachother and have thier own sets of extentions and libs etc that each interpreter knows how to handle (and of course, the sym link to your "default" python interpreter)

    i realize that you can make wrappers that would create the proper environment, but thats not exactly a portable solution. the way it is now looks like they want you to keep re writing your old code.

  • python changes. 2.0 to 2.1 changed rules [www.amk.ca] but thier solution to backwards compatibility is to introduce incompatible changes slowy and eventually they dont work.that still means you have to go back and change your scripts from the past, or at least thats how they wrote about about it in PEP 236 [www.amk.ca].
    The reaction to nested scopes was widespread concern about the dangers of breaking code with the 2.1 release, and it was strong enough to make the Pythoneers take a more conservative approach. This approach consists of introducing a convention for enabling optional functionality in release N that will become compulsory in release N+1.
    note that there was nothing in that statement about making python aribtrarily backwards compatible. something where newer versions would default to old behavior unless there was convention in the script to use the newer rules could solve that problem without having to recompile all your python extentions (pygnome etc) or worrying about it. (extentions written in python would simply be subject to the same convention so that you could still use it down the line even you upgrade python). anyway, this is just an example of what ive seen done elsewhere and there are probably better ways to deal with it.

    what you have on your red hat box would be fine if thats how python was distributed, it kinda emulates what i was blabbering about above. but when someone using python on another platform who only has 2.1 and mabe some extentions gives you a bunch of scripts, the least youll have to do is s/python/python2/ in the first line. maybe thats all it takes. ill have to play with it.

    i did just look on a another machine that only has python 2.1 installed. it did install a binary called python2.1. theres still the question of extentions written in python and thier compatibility with newer releases, have to look at that too.

    this may seem bitchy or whatever but i really dont want to spend my time learning a new language and writing a buch of stuff and then get bitten by something chaging incompatibly to where i end up having to write different version for certain platforms. at least not more than changes that can themselves be easily scripted...

  • No one believes there is. What he was criticising, rightly I believe, was the expectation that Free Software will be brought into conformance with the GPL. There are some people out there who adopt the GPL as their personal licensing ethic, and grade all other licenses on their compatability with it. Some of are simply a little tired of listening to their complaints when they find something unacceptable.

    There is one important point that noone seems to have mentioned yet. While there may be a lot of arguments about the merrits of different licenses, it is very desireable for different free software packages to have compatible licenses.

    If we restrict ourselves to the point of view of an end user of software, and only consider the static availability of software at a time, this might seem unimportant. However, from a broader perspective, this becomes very relevant.

    As an example, it is now possible to embed Python as a scripting language into any GPL'ed application. And we can pull the regexp code out of Python and use it in gawk (or vice versa).

  • I like Ruby's Smalltalk-like semantics, but I must admit I'm afraid of its Perl-like syntax. Why, oh why, did he choose the most random syntax for what would otherwise be an elegant language?
  • Being anal about legal issues gives FSF some creditibility when enforcing the GPL. Sure, Python certainly had the right intention with its license. But that's a weak way to enforce a legal document. Someone else will come along, and they won't have good intentions, but they'll be able to point at how FSF and GPL copyright holders never really cared about compliance anyway, so they should be allowed to bend the rules too.

    Legal documents are all about being anal. The law is all about being anal. Guido doesn't care about this -- so be it. But it's because some people do care about this that the GPL exists and serves a real purpose in the world. Otherwise the GPL would just be so many words.

  • "compatible" is not the right word. It implies that things function together. THe problem is not that other license are not compatible with the gpl, but that the gpl isn't compatible with *anything*--it views sharing as a one-way street, *from* free licenses *to* the gpl. To use gpl software and anything else, you end up at gpl. This isn't compatiblity, but assimilation . . .


    hawk, fearful of the borg

  • >I used to buy into the "not declaring variables
    >lead to hell" philosophy, but


    *shrug* It's your soul . . .


    :)


    hawk

  • >Pop quiz. You arrive at a birthday party, and everyone's brought some
    >toys to play with, including you. You play with other people's toys,
    >but when someone reaches for one of your toys you slap their hand and
    >scream, "That's my toy!"

    OK, but this is also a fair description of the GPL and an assortment of
    free licenses.


    There seems to be an assumption in these arguments that anyone using
    other code takes a full GPL project and modifies it to do something
    else--in which case the argment makes sense that the whole thing should
    carry the GPL. Or that the GPL project uses a tad of code from software
    under a free license. IT doesn't consider the other direction--that
    a massive free project wants to use a tad of GPL code, but cannot do
    so under its own license.


    hawk

  • It's about as off topic as "the emperor has no clothes" in a discussion of the splendid new outfit worn by the naked emperor . . .


    hawk

  • I'm sorry...I guess I just have to get out of the mindset that the GPL is "THE Open source license"... gotta remember the BSD license, etc. That in mind, what was Python before now?
    -------------------------------------------- --
    All that glitters has a high refractive index.

  • Re:The futility of it all (Score:5)

    by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @08:49PM (#149877) Homepage Journal

    The primary reason that anyone cared about making Python's license GPL compatible is due to the fact that Python is a very popular embedded language. In fact, that's one of Python's major strengths. Before version 1.6 came out (with a GPL incompatible license) a whole pile of GPLed programs had already adopted Python as their embedded scripting language. However, with the new license they no longer could use the newer version of Python (because of the incompatible license). That meant that all of these projects were going to be stuck with version 1.5.2 of Python forever (several of them probably wished that they had followed the GNU standard and embedded guile instead).

    Guido wanted to make sure that Python could still be embedded in GPLed software, and so the Python folks have been working really hard to sort the license stuff out.

    As for why you would use the GPL as a license. Well, there are several reasons. Many free software hackers use the GPL for political reasons. They feel that the "freedom" that the GPL insures is worth the extra hassle. Other more pragmatic hackers use the GPL because it allows them to release the source code to their work and yet still maintain control of it. For example, it is becoming fairly common to release GPLed software under dual licenses. To people who want to use the source in Free Software the author shares the source under the GPL. However, if someone wants to use the same software in a commercial project then the author licenses the code to the individual or company under a commercial license. That way the hacker can make his software available to other free software hackers under a free license, but still charge commercial developers money for the same source.

    It is important to note that Python is not releasing their source under the GPL. Their license is quite a bit more liberal than the GPL and allows the use of Python source in commercial closed source products. Their new license is simply GPL compatible, which means that GPL hackers will be able to upgrade.

    That's good news for everyone.

  • I love Python. I thought the previous licences were more than adequate. I never saw the need for Python to be "GPL-compatible", nor do I think the GPL is a particularly good licence to begin with.

    This isn't intended as a flame. I would like to know why many people in the community are so hung up on the GPL. How is it better than the Apache, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic or other licences? As we know, the GPL hasn't been challenged in court anyway, and it does appear to be unnecessarily wordy and extremely adverse to business. Instead of flaming me, please explain what is so good about the GPL. Thanks in advance!

    When I read of events like this I can't stop but think this is analogous to a marketing pressure in the business world. "Look," the licensors might say, "those guys released their software as GPL; we must do it too!"

    Take care,

    E

  • rfsayre wrote:

    The GPL ensures that no one has more (or less) control over the the code than the author.

    All licences, by definition, are issued by the controlling party (i.e. author or legal rights holder) to the users.

    I appreciate your comment; however, this still doesn't answer the original question: How is the GPL superior to other licences?

    And no, this was not intended as a troll nor as flamebait. I really want to understand how the GPL is better than other Open Source licences. I understand why some people consider Open Source licences superior to commercial licences (I release software under both types of licences depending on business objectives). This is about understanding why people get so hot and bothered about the GPL.

    Thanks,

    E

  • Dear proxima,

    Thanks very much for your explanation. It helped me understand what the issues are from a non-fanatical point of view. I appreciate the time you took in putting your answer together.

    Best wishes,

    E
  • If you have plans to sell a proprietary product, then you are the pot, and you are calling the kettle black, and you are merely reinforcing my point.

    Why in God's name are you allowed to choose whatever restrictions you want on your proprietary software, no matter how restrictive, but I can't choose the GPL without drawing your flames?

  • I was addressing the majority of GPL complainants, not you specifically. For the vast majority of GPL complainants, my admonishment is relevant.

    Faced with an anonymous coward post, I had to go with the numbers and choose the reply with the greatest chance of being relevant. I apologize for completely misreading your particular perspective.

    Anyway, if you are not a programmer, why do you hate the GPL so much, to the point of calling it a virus? It can't possibly affect your life.

  • Harassment is a strong word, with a legal definition. Do you really RMS and other GPL advocates subjected the Python team to legal harassment?

    If harassing tactics were used to force the Python team to change their license, then that is clearly wrong. But if the Python team voluntarily chooses a new license, then I think everyone else using their code is obligated to respect that decision.

  • Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus...

    As far as I can tell, a company is still perfectly free to release an open source app under a license other than the GPL. There is no law against it.

    Conversely, there is no law against choosing to release your program under the GPL. However, there are laws against releasing viruses, and it sounded very strongly to me that the poster would support illegalizing the GPL "virus".

    Unless you are suggesting that the Python developers were forced to change their license involuntarily, I see no reason why there is anything wrong with the Python developers choosing a new license for their code, on their own free will.

    And I think the rest of us who use the Python software are obligated to follow the new license, whether that license is the GPL or a Microsoft EULA.

  • Thank you for that clarification. It's good that we both agree the GPL should be legal.

    To get back to your original questions:

    • Not everything has to be GPL compatible. In fact, there probably exists more GPL incompatible software, than GPL compatible software.
    • A company is perfectly free to release software not under the GPL. In light of this point, your use of the words "virus" and "invade" is inappropriate.
    No one forces you to use the GPL. But when other people like the Python developers choose to use the GPL (or any other license), please respect their licensing terms.

    The fundamental paradox of your position is, you cannot disregard GPL licensing terms without at the same time disregarding all other licensing terms. Both are based on the same premise: if you wanna use the code, you gotta follow the license.

  • they should expect to be berated by the minority in the Free Software community who look upon every act GPL-advocacy as a quest on par with the search for the Holy Grail in terms of importance.

    So, let me get this straignt. Berating someone is a bad thing, unless you're doing the berating, right?

    As for the "License? Who cares? Do what you like" attitude, I'm all for it, as long as you apply it consistently. If you disregard the GPL, then you must disregard proprietary licenses as well, and furthermore you cannot expect anyone to heed any licenses you may have on your own software.

  • In my experience, everyone who dislikes the GPL does so because they want to use open source code in proprietary applications and the GPL won't let them.

    And so I ask you: If you are writing proprietary applications, or allowing development of proprietary applications, then what right do you have to complain against the GPL, when your own proprietary program has a far more restrictive license?

    Please let loose the strings on your own code, before you complain about strings other people choose to attach on their code. You're the one who is crying gimme gimme gimme.

  • Irrelevant, though; languages don't link to the interpreter, they're executed by it. Your Gnumeric spreadsheets don't need to be GPLed, and your Python programs don't have to fall under the Python license. Python isn't GPLed, but there is GPLed Python software, and also completely proprietary Python software.
  • Note that GvR does not work for CNRI any longer; he works for Digital Creations [digicool.com]. He previously worked at CNRI, and when he and his team left, CNRI's management wanted to revise the license to suit their legal view of the world, leading to this morass.
  • OK, I'll toss the first charcoal briquette to start a language flame-war, it's a slow day on Slashdot :-)

    I'd also recommend that you try Ruby [ruby-lang.org]. I think you could consider it the next generation after Perl and Python. Very clean, O-O language with regular expressions and closures. I wrote in Python for a while, including Zope, and ended up switching to Ruby. I'm using the Debian Ruby packages from "unstable", which work excellently.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Unless Jython changes its licence also, it is not yet GPL compatible - point 8 stipulates that the agreement is to be governed by, and interpreted in the state of Virginia, the very issue which stopped the CPython CNRI licence from being compatible.

    Since class files are run together in one memory space, an incompatible code licence is an issue [gnu.org].

    So distributing JPython is incompatible with other GPL Java code. But remember that if none of the other code is GPL, then this is not an issue. And if you are writing the other Java code, you can release your code under a licence compatible with both the old CNRI and GPL licences.

    Oh and to clarify: just distributing GPL with non-GPL code isn't a problem. It's the 'running in the same memory space' issue which is. So if some of your Java code is run completely separately from the others, say client and server software, the two components can have incompatible licences.

  • Just to clarify another common misconception in this article, you are not forced to distribute your source code if you make mods to a GPLed program - only if you distribute the modified version.
    --
    the telephone rings / problem between screen and chair / thoughts of homocide
  • Yes!

    I wish people would read the articles before
    commenting.

    -Kevin
  • But the GPL basically says you must make the source available if you distribute binaries. This situation doesn't really apply to Python scripts, since there are no binaries.
  • In this case it matters because Guido wants it to be. Read that here.

    You mean the part where Guido says:
    I don't personally care any more whether Python will ever be GPL-compatible -- I'm just trying to do the FSF a favor because they like to use Python. With all the grief they're giving me, I wonder why I should be bothered any more.
    ?

  • Re:Free Software vs. Open Source, vs GPL'd (Score:5)

    by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:52PM (#149896) Homepage
    "I have, on the other hand, dealt with many companies who refuse to use GPL's software due to the restrictions it introduces, as well as the general lack of accountbility which is an integral part of most open-source licenses."

    The lack of accountability? {boggle} Do the people at the many companies you've dealt with actually READ the licensing agreements on the commercial software they are paying for? Without naming names, pick any J. Random Licensing Agreement and you'll see words to the effect of "We promise nothing. We accept no responsibility. Don't be surprised if this software is utterly unfit for anything, including the task for which you are paying the license fee. Anything that happens is on your head. Now pay up, bitch."

    At least when open/free software rejects accountability, it does so with a sense of "You get what you pay for." If I were paying a thousand bucks a head for {important software package critical to my business success} I'd be a little less forgiving of the "Don't call me" attitude.
  • The only thing you have wrong is #1. The only people you have to provide source to are the people you provide binaries to. Even though Linus is the copyright holder, he doesn't get any rights to your version unless you give him the binaries.

    You left out an important part of #2, though: You have to give the purchasers of the VCR the right to modify and redistribute the code (under the GPL), as well as simply obtaining it.
  • short version, from the FAQ:

    "1.14. Are there copyright restrictions on the use of Python?

    Hardly. You can do anything you want with the source, as long as you leave the copyrights in, and display those copyrights in any
    documentation about Python that you produce. Also, don't use the author's institute's name in publicity without prior written
    permission, and don't hold them responsible for anything (read the actual copyright for a precise legal wording).

    In particular, if you honor the copyright rules, it's OK to use Python for commercial use, to sell copies of Python in source or binary
    form, or to sell products that enhance Python or incorporate Python (or part of it) in some form. I would still like to know about all
    commercial use of Python! "

    P.S.: Thanks! I was wondering if I would get first post AND have the lowest user # in this thread, now I don't have to look any more!*grin*

    Brian
  • This is terrific news, but does anyone know if Jython [jython.org] (the version of Python written to run under the Java VM) is also GPL compatible?

    According to their license [jython.org] and their sourceforge site [sourceforge.net] the Jython license is OSI-approved, but GPL-compatibility is not quite the same thing.

    Jython is cool because it allows Python code to be compiled into Java class files, but you need to distribute those files along with the Jython class files... but if you're distributing them together, doesn't that break the GPL?

    --Cycon

  • The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard

    The owner of the copyright still has more rights than anyone else. He can relicense it under a different license. No one else is granting that power. So the initial developer has special rights, just like in the NPL case. Granted, they don't cause the problems that occur with NPL, but special rights still exist.

    Licenses like public domain and BSD don't have tihs problem.

    If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.

    This is a meaningless statement, since copyleft is tautologically equivalent to the GPL. Copyleft is a neologism coined by the FSF to mean "a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well." And since they have a non-standard definition of "free", theirs is the only license that fully satisfies their definition of "copyleft".

    Try reading over their license list: X license - not copyleft, BSD license - not copyleft, W3C license - not copyleft, Artistic license - not copyleft, Python license - not copyleft, Apache license - not copyleft, Zope license - not copyleft, OpenLDAP license - not copyleft, IBM PL, Mozilla PL, Sun PL, Netscape PL, Qt PL, PHP license, all not copyleft.

  • I would like to know why many people in the community are so hung up on the GPL. How is it better than the Apache, BSD, Mozilla, Artistic or other licences?

    The GPL makes certain types of free software businesses more viable by requiring that others who build on the GPL'ed work must make their work freely redistributable, but some other copying conditions also have this property to varying degrees, for example the Mozilla Public License. What makes the GPL special in comparison to other copying conditions that have this crucial type of restriction is that the GPL has the largest collection of legally cominglable software (which includes a lot of software that does not restrict proprietary variants, like "new BSD style", "MIT style" and public domain). This software includes critical components of a free system, such as the GNU compilers and the best implementations of a myriad of unix-style utilities. Why is the amount of mutually cominglable software important? Because the efficiencies of software sharing depend on what software there is to share, and often this sharing occurs in ways that were not efficient to anticipate as an prewritten programming interface when the software is originally created. Software recycling is a network effect. So, if you write code under GPL compatible copying conditions, it should find the most use, adaptation and contribution in the future.

    By the way, some people also feel there is an ethetical issue in wanting or opposing restrictions against derivative works. I think both of those groups probably feel something that is part of a larger efficiency ethic that angers us when we see our time being wasted even when we are being paid by the hour, for example, and that probably motivates a lot of free software development by itself.

    Of course, I imagine other people have other reasons as well. I certainly don't know everyone's mind on this.

  • P.S.: Thanks! I was wondering if I would get first post AND have the lowest user # in this thread, now I don't have to look any more!*grin*


    11763 is less than 18296.

    --

  • It should read "the Commonwealth of Virginia"

    --

  • So um... (Score:3)

    by Mike Schiraldi ( 18296 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:08PM (#149908) Homepage Journal
    I can't seem to find any explanation of what was actually done to make it GPL-compatable. Was code removed? Rewritten?

    --

  • That's simply because Microsoft *loves* the BSD license as it allows commercial interests to take the code, modify it, and sell the *binaries* without sharing their changes in source form. In other words, the BSD license allows you to co-opt source code whereas the GPL forces you to share.

    I have no trouble with either license -- it's up to the original developer to choose one. And while it's tempting to view the GPL as non-free since you aren't free to co-opt the code, I really like the "sharing is a two-way street" mentality of the GPL.

    If you take code under the GPL, modify it, release the binaries without the source and then claim ignorance and whine that the GPL has somehow "infected" your hard work, you're just dumb. If Microsoft believes that all their customers should read and understand the five-page, ALL CAPS legalese they ship with their products, they should be held accountable for realizing when they're basing their code off something that's released under the GPL. And so instead they spread FUD that GPL code is a bad thing since they can't use it in their products.

    Pop quiz. You arrive at a birthday party, and everyone's brought some toys to play with, including you. You play with other people's toys, but when someone reaches for one of your toys you slap their hand and scream, "That's my toy!" How long before you get kicked out of the party? And how many people in attendance will miss you?

    Peace PatientZero

  • I'm not sure that it necessarily is better. But it is older than most of the licenses you listed in your original comment. It also covers lots of packages. While courts should not decide on votes, if there were a challenge of the legitimacy of the GPL, the fact that a billion-trillion "Hello, World" programs are released under it might add a little pressure.

    As to why not use (for example) the NPL? If I recall, many of the rights revert back to Netscape. I think the IBMPL and some of the others are similar. To have a license that I (as a developer, even though I'm not, really) value, I would have to change all instances of "Netscape Communications Corp." to "George Howell".

    Which raises this problem: I can't afford to protect my license. Netscape (via AOL/TW) can. My only alternative is to release under GPL or BSD (as they are the only two that allow ME to retain my code, not Netscape). Both are backed by organizations that, while not as large as AOL/TW, are much larger that George Howell. So they have a better chance of getting the license to stand on its face. Then I just need to apply it to my situation (or assign rights to the FSF in the first place, but that's starting to get far afield).

    So, should you ever see my software (and if you don't work at my company, you probably won't see my "Hello, World, and Everybody" scripts:) it is under GPL because:

    BSD doesn't keep M$ from stealing my stuff (and I could give a rat's ass about their right to make money on my stuff)
    NPL gives Netscape my rights
    Other people will fund the initial challenges to the GPL.

    YMMV, and all that rubbish.

  • I'm not sure which companies are buying all of these bargain priced service contracts. I work for a small company ($4million US) and started work there after having some of these erstwhile contracts. Quite frankly, they were for shit. After about 8 months of me wiping the asses and covering for idiots, I cancelled the contracts, and did my own damned maintenance. The cost savings have been tremendous.

    Problem is, by kicking out various proprietary cruft (Yeah, yeah, M$ was my first target, but there are others) I'm also making my job a hell of a lot easier, as the *nix stuff just keeps on going and going and going...

    I'm not saying that some companies don't get some measure of value out of service contracts. But I have a feeling that most of them were purchased without a cost-benefit analysis (with the option of in house experts included) and solely for the purpose of allowing some manager to sleep at night, knowing that the CYA step was accomplished.

    So, since I think service contracts are worthless (I figure that I should get what I paid for when I signed my contract. When I get that, THEN I'll start paying for service. But if you give me a 90% program, I consider the time waiting for the other 10% to be an extended installation period.) I don't bother with 'em. Four years and going, and haven't missed 'em a bit. What we have had to pay for, service wise, has been maybe 15% of what the service contract would have been (and no, the service contracts weren't out of the ordinary. They were just as useful as the extended warranty at Circuit City.)

  • I guess they wanted to update it to get more people to go to the movie [slashdot.org]. This crap of the MPAA licensing movies and requiring a click-through is getting out of hand.

    But won't John Cleese be pissed off if I steal his bits for my own comedy act?

    ...Programming language? WTF are you talking about?

  • Re:If you haven't tried Python... (Score:3)

    by Spoons ( 26950 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:04PM (#149913) Homepage
    You don't have to declare variables and their type before use.

    Ahhh something I hate about both python and perl. Not declaring a variable before use. I am surprised python allows this. They tout themselves as an easy to understand language (whitespace has scope signifigance etc),but they allow the coder to be sloppy. The misspelled variable then becomes valid and a difficult bug to find! Also the declaration of the variable serves as a good place to comment its use. In my opinion the strict pragma (or whatever it is in perl) should be mandatory. But everyone has their own preferences :)

    r

    ---
  • Take an existing GPL-project like Open Office, which is dual licensed.

    They can actually demand that people who want their patches included in official release agree to cross-license their code. Noone has a right to get any code included in the official Linux kernel for example. So Linus could have (from the start, now it is next to impossible as he has to get approval from all contributors),
    released the Linuxkernel, and demanded that people who wanted anything in the official Linuxkernel cross-licensed their code. Of course he could also demand that any forks is not to be called Linux as he has copyright on that name.

    Of course, anyone can fork Open Office so that they don't have to submit anything cross-licensed, and the official Open Office cannot use it unless they only make it available in their GPL-version.
    Note: I'm not saying this is how Open Office currently works, it is just an example.

    The point behind cross-licensing is to make the original authors capable of releasing a commercial version.

    For instance.. Qt is available in two licenses, GPL and commercial. This makes sure that Trolltech can earn money off people wanting to develop closed-source projects.
    I do not know how their policy on patches is, but if they do not demand patches to be cross-licensed I would except that most people submit patches to them cross-licensed anyway, since they recognize the important work Trolltech has done for the community and wants to give something back.
  • Not only flamebait, but also very wrong.

    I'm normally in favor of the GPL, but when it comes to interpreted languages, I'm glad they are not GPL'd, as anything that LINKS to a GPL'd application (with an exception when it comes to system libraries), has to be GPL'd.
    As a python-script is totally dependent of Python, this would make all python-scripts GPL'd.. of course, Python isn't GPL'd so this isn't a problem.

    The moral is; choose licenses with care, neither the BSD nor the GPL is any better than the other, they are different though.
  • .. I don't normally think that the proprietary plugins are ok with a stock GPL-license. As long as the plugins are dependent on the GIMP, then they have to be GPL as well.

    However, I _do_ think that in this particular case (The Gimp), there is an exception-clause that grants you the right to create proprietary plugins.

    The same is true for the Linux-kernel, for which Linus Torvalds has said that proprietary kernel-modules that do not modify any kernel-code, is ok.
  • In my experience, everyone who dislikes the GPL does so because they want to use open source code in proprietary applications and the GPL won't let them.

    Right, that certainly explains the BSDs and the LGPL.

    Please let loose the strings on your own code, before you complain about strings other people choose to attach on their code.

    Oh please, doesn't anyone take classes on argumentation anymore? You're a walking fallacy. I'll forgo the usual "I haven't killed you yet so I can't comment on whether it's bad" retorts.

    You're the one who is crying gimme gimme gimme.

    How did you reach that conclusion? He said "Why can't a company be free to release an open-source app that doesn't allow the General Public Virus...". Maybe I missed the latest patch to English, but he seemed to promoting non-GPLed open source software.

  • As far as I can tell, a company is still perfectly free to release an open source app under a license other than the GPL. There is no law against it.

    Yes, they are, but they should expect to be berated by the minority in the Free Software community who look upon every act GPL-advocacy as a quest on par with the search for the Holy Grail in terms of importance.

    However, there are laws against releasing viruses, and it sounded very strongly to me that the poster would support illegalizing the GPL "virus".

    You must not get out much. The "General Public Virus" is an old rebuke of the linking requirements of the GPL, and is purely rhetorical. It has nothing to do with the law, nor in fact with viruses; it's simply an analogy and reasonably clever play on words.

    I see no reason why there is anything wrong with the Python developers choosing a new license for their code, on their own free will.

    No one believes there is. What he was criticising, rightly I believe, was the expectation that Free Software will be brought into conformance with the GPL. There are some people out there who adopt the GPL as their personal licensing ethic, and grade all other licenses on their compatability with it. Some of are simply a little tired of listening to their complaints when they find something unacceptable.

    And I think the rest of us who use the Python software are obligated to follow the new license

    Legally, you aren't, unless you upgrade, since my understanding is that licenses can't be altered retroactively (yet). Morally, who cares? Do what you like.

  • So, let me get this straignt. Berating someone is a bad thing, unless you're doing the berating, right?

    I was speaking specifically of berating companies for their licensing, so there isn't much of an analogy to draw, if that what you're going for. I'm certainly not opposed to berating, insulting, harassing, assaulting, bombing, and so, in principle, but not for something as trivial and selfish as trying to dictate the details of other people's licensing decisions to fulfill your ethical goals (which I'm not doing, so don't bother). In any case, I don't believe I was berating; rather, I think it was a mildly insulting generalization that happens to reflect reality to some degree (much like the "General Public Virus"). I believe berating requires more force and a more speicifc target.

    As for the "License? Who cares? Do what you like" attitude, I'm all for it, as long as you apply it consistently.

    You misunderstood, and misquoted. I simply meant that while legally you aren't required to use the new license, morally it's your business and whether you choose use the new or old, I don't care, as long as you don't decide it's the 'right' decision and try to force it down my throat. (Not that you could, since I don't use Python, but still....)

    If you disregard the GPL, then you must disregard proprietary licenses as well, and furthermore you cannot expect anyone to heed any licenses you may have on your own software.

    I don't expect anyone to heed my licenses as it is. And actually I wouldn't mind ignoring licenses altogether, except that doing so works entirely against Free Software -- after all, its no trouble for closed-source software developers to just not give anyone the source, making the issue moot -- and if I'm going to screw someone, it's going to be to my benefit.

  • I'm running a stock Red Hat 7.1 box; the only mods are that I'm running GNOME 1.4, Mozilla 0.9.1 (which broke parts of Nautilus), and I've got Python 2.1 installed.


    #!/usr/bin/env python


    ... will always run Python 1.5.x, and


    #!/usr/bin/env python2


    ... will always run Python 2.1.

    In other words, exactly what is it that you're complaining about here? Seems to me like you're whining over a problem which doesn't even exist.
  • yes, the fact that I don't own a TV set *does* make me a better person.

    Ahh, straight out of one of my favorites from The Onion: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television [theonion.com]

    Maybe not having a TV makes you a better person, but being a smug prick does not.

    -Bruce
  • From this point forward I urge everyone to choose a license that is compatible with the NPL (Netscape Public License). I will create a list shortly and post it on the web somewhere and every free software developer should read this list and choose one on it for their software.

    That would be very amusing. The resulting collection of software would be incompatible with itself. NPL grants special rights to the initial developer. If you have product A NPLed by vendor AA, and product B NPLed by vendor BB, then a third party cannot legally distribute a combined work AB, because they'd have to grant extra rights over A to vendor BB and extra rights over B to vendor AA, which a third party has no power to do.

    If you have any license which grants more rights to one party than another, then that license is useless as a "gold standard of compatibility". The GPL is a license which grants the same rights to everybody, and only a license like this can sensibly be used as a compatibility standard. If you believe in copyleft, then the GPL is the only sensible choice.

  • At http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GP LIncompatibleLicenses [gnu.org] Richard Stallman writes
    The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions:

    This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL. The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the laws of the "State" of Virginia in the USA, and the GPL does not permit this.

  • Re:As a matter of fact... (Score:5)

    by Eric the .5b ( 49632 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:35PM (#149929)
    "I don't personally care any more whether Python will ever be GPL-compatible -- I'm just trying to do the FSF a favor because they like to use Python. With all the grief they're giving me, I wonder why I should be bothered any more."

    Guido's quote in the very interview you reference.

  • Read an article on ZDNet about licensing which I thought some would find interesting.

    When listening to the verbal sparring between open source advocates and Microsoft, it's interesting to notice what's not being talked about. Look at any side of the debate. Do you see any mention of BSD?

    Quite a few licenses qualify as open source [opensource.org], according to those who define the term. In attacks on open source, such as the recent commentary by Microsoft's Craig Mundie [zdnet.com], the headline and opening comments target open source in a general way. But one doesn't have to read far to see that the only open source license under attack is the GNU General Public License [fsf.org] (GPL).

    To add to this focus on the GNU GPL, there has been almost no response to Microsoft from within the BSD community.


    [full document [zdnet.com]]

  • Bugfix? (Score:4)

    by quartz ( 64169 ) <shadowman@mylaptop.com> on Thursday June 14, 2001 @06:48PM (#149933) Homepage
    What, now the licenses have bugs too? I'd better start asking my lawyer what debugger he uses...
  • But, what if you want something to be free for non-corporate users and you want said users to be able to modify your source for their own personal use. You do not, however want corporate companies to use it without cost. You also wish to reserve the right to repackage/extend the source at a later date into a proprietary product.

    Is this not reason to not use the GPL?
    ------------------------------------
  • I could not agree more. For chrissakes, people, use software that does what you want. I don't give a damn what license a piece of software uses, if it does what I need, I'll use it and speak highly of it too. If I have to pay for it, that's fine too. Life's way too short to put up with crap software, just because of sillyness like this.

    I wonder how many blind zealots there were that did not use python (until now) because of its GPL-incompatible licensing issues?


    ---
  • and it _wasn't_ ultimately his decision.

    If someone was whining in your ear non-stop, would it be "your decision" to walk away, or would you be forced to, to save yourself a headache?


    ---
  • The BSD license gets referred to as a flaw in the opensource system. I really hate to use this as a reference but the movie Antitrust spoke about code that could well have been under a BSD type license.

  • Re:And this does what? (Score:3)

    by jemfinch ( 94833 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @10:36PM (#149948) Homepage
    I like that it's GPL'ed, but what would happen if it was put under another open-source licence? Would it make /.?

    Um, it is under another open source license -- one that's less restrictive than the GPL, and allows integration into closed source programs. The BSD-like license it's now under, however, is compatible with the GPL, so it can be used in GPLed programs.

    Jeremy
    --

  • One thing I'll never understand is how a program can be GPL compatible AND cross-licensed. That just doesn't make sense to me, unless people do submit GPL-only patches that will never make it into the BSD-branch. Suddenly you've forked the project. Either that, or you're breaking the law in some way. What IS the point?

    - Steeltoe

  • compatible w/ GPL != under GPL (Score:5)

    by Huusker ( 99397 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @08:17PM (#149952) Homepage

    Just to clarify a common misconception on this thread, Python is not subject to the GPL. You are not forced to distribute your source code if you make mods to Python. The license [python.org] is actually more like BSD and Apache (free to modify and distribute; must cite copyright). "Compatible" just means that the FSF has signed off on the wording on the license in relation to linking or including with GPL software.

    At a former employer I helped to embed a Python interpreter in a proprietary hard-assed firewall system, some components of which were classified by the feds. That's about as non-open as you can get.

  • When I'm just playing around with a little code to see if something will work, I'd rather not have to go back to the top and insert a declaration every time I find I need a variable for a for loop or something.

    C++ and, as of C99, C permit the declaration of variables with scope local to the loop within the initializer part of the for construct, not to mention the declaration of variables anywhere within a block rather than strictly at the top. The top is still better for most things. But if the variable has no significance to the over-all function, it might be better to move the declaration towards the area its used, just to keep the top-most declarations wholly relevant to the function.

    ...as best I can remember FORTRAN didn't even _allow_ variable declarations except for arrays, and I think that worked out fairly well...

    I believe you can require explicit type declarations of variables in later versions of FORTRAN (F90, I think) by beginning the program unit with IMPLICIT NONE and, what's more, that you are generally recommended to do so.

    The old unstructured BASIC was even better IMHO, ...

    Ack! Not to be too pedantic, but these sorts of unstructured BASICs that you refer to are not "old" but new. Well, sort of. We've seen, recently, a push towards BASICs that are more structured. However, the microprocessor BASICs were vastly stripped down versions of the original by Kemeny and Kurtz. The two combined efforts to produce TrueBASIC some time after the original had come and past. TrueBASIC, as its name implies, was intended to be the true-form of BASIC, and it is a structured language with variable declaration, etc. Kemeny, BTW, is a fascinating person with amazing historical significance both in and out of the field of computer science. I don't think most people are aware of, nor would immediately believe if told, the fact that one of the co-inventors of BASIC (Kemeny) also was a mathematical assistant to Einstein, helped invent the first time-sharing computer system, reviewed the Three Mile Island disaster (and condemned some aspects of nuclear energy) under authority of President Jimmy Carter, etc. Amazing how so much history intertwines, yes?

  • This is no different than the deprecation of particular language features. Actually, it's better. The old manner of non-nesting scopes is considered deprecated, but remains the default for compatability. You can write forward compatable programs, now. At a later date, the default will switch, effectively removing the old behavior. The __future__ pseudo-module allows forward compatability without breaking backwards compatability during a transitional phase. The language is changed for the better, as nested scopes are ultimately very desirable, and there's a reasonable transitional phase with an appropriate mechanism to write programs now that take advantage of future features. In this particular case, this model of transition/deprecation is more than reasonable since the potential incompatabilities involved in introducing nested scopes are unlikely and bizarre (specifically, if the same name is used at the module level and as a local variable within a function that has nested functions which reference the variable). The other side-effect of the change is the enforcement of a long-standing rule of the language (which was, previously, un[der]enforced).

    Therefore, the __future__ model seems to me to be wholly appropriate and a reason to take the language seriously. It's advancement of the language without dismissing backwards compatability--even when the code that is now incompatable has always been dubious in style and/or substance. By introducing __future__, programs that abused the language in manners that aren't permissable with nested scopes do not require a change to continue to operate under 2.1 and you have ample time and warning to change anything that confusingly re-uses variable names.

  • Well, I have little doubt that there are implementation-dependent mechanisms for tweaking the garbage collection schemes of both Java and Python. But, you're right, the statement was a rather curious demonstration of unfamiliarity with Java. On the other hand, he may have a point in saying that Python is simpler to learn than Java, even if his reasoning was on faulty grounds. Java is a much more strict language with far more baggage than Python. It's of little consequence once you're familiar with the red-tape (access modifiers, placing everything in classes, etc.)--and, actually, after you get used to it, you realize it's in many ways better than the alternatives--but for the beginner who may not be familiar with all the concepts, it can be confusing and off-putting.

    Most introductory Java books or classes (note that the following is true of C and C++, too) begin by giving you a skeletal framework and telling users to fill in the blanks and ignore the trappings of the program which will be discussed in detail later. A lot of people don't like the idea of being told, "We're going to start now, by throwing together a whole bunch of stuff you don't understand and I won't explain until much later, and then writing a single line or two." There's some innate skepticism and curiousity that makes many people very dissatisfied with the idea that there should be a bunch of stuff in their beginning programs that they aren't expected to understand and that won't be explained to them. With Python, it's possible to just sit down and write some stuff, and build up to more complex trappings.

  • For people doing proprietary work, there is nothing wrong with proprietary licenses -- as long as you don't expect to make use of GPLed code in your proprietary application.

    Similarly: If you're working on a GPL project, incorporating non-gpl code (and especially proprietary code) can be very problematic. For people who like GPLed code, the comming over of a piece of software to the GPL side of the force can be something to celebrate. It means that they have one more tool that they can work freely with.

    Where GPL people are likely to get flame-festy is where people are doing proprietary work, and complaining about how GPLed resources want to 'steal their code'. What's actually happening is that the propreitary user want's to "steal" the GPL'ed code -- which is to say that (s)he is not willing to pay the price of the GPL: freedom for the resulting code.
    --

  • Ah, but Python variables aren't valid before assigned to, they don't "magically" spring into existance because you happened to refer to them. Strict (if not static) typing also helps. It doesn't catch every and all mistake, but it catches most of them, and not having to declare variables turns out making _me_ more productive that I'd be in a stricter language. I used to buy into the "not declaring variables lead to hell" philosophy, but honestly, Python's way of handling this has made me a firm believer it's actually a good thing not having to declare them.

    Above all Python is the most _fun_ I've had in any language I can think of. That's worth a bunch as well=)

    -

  • How they claim the freedom to choose which OS you prefer, but it must be linux. If you love freedom of choice so much then you should not complain about people who prefer windows/macos/bsd/commercial unix/etc/etc.

  • Amusing... (Score:3)

    by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:28PM (#149963) Journal

    I think I have far too much hold over the world. Just yesterday I decided to quit learning Python in favour of C purely because of this issue, and today they go GPL...

    I'm scared...

    ---

  • Several partial answers appear to your question, but I thought you might be interested in a bit of context. I was looking at this issue recently because some people in my company wanted to embed Python in a product and I wanted to point the lawyers to the relevant docs.

    One major point of contention was that since Guido van Rossum now works for a company (CNRI) in the U.S. Commonwealth (non-US people: state) of Virginia, and that company naturally did not want to have to go around the world fighting court battles, they included language stating that any legal issues would be governed by the laws of Virginia. This makes reasonable sense for the company, but presents a problem for the FSF.

    Why? Because the laws of any state or country are a moving target. If the FSF signs off today on the license as "Free Software" and Virginia passes UCITA the next day, the FSF would have to turn around and say that Python is no longer Free Software. Obviously no programmer would want to deal with this. So, the FSF's point of view is also perfectly reasonable. It just depends who's looking.

    adéu,
    Mateu

  • The makers of python are interested in having as many people use it as possible.

    The only pressure put on them to be GPL compatible was the number of programmers who would use a GPL compatible python vs the number who would not.

    So this choice to become compatible was entirely the developers free will.

  • Re:The futility of it all (Score:4)

    by proxima ( 165692 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:53PM (#149967)
    Disclaimer: I am by no means a GPL fanatic. But nonetheless I think I can help to answer your question.

    The biggest component of the GPL that RMS and the fans of GPL like is the same thing that made Microsoft incorrectly call it a "cancer". The GPL basically says that if you take the source code to a GPL program, make changes, and then distribute the binary, you are obligated to release the source to whomever you released the binary. In addition, you must release your new source under the GPL license, which gives the new users of the source the ability to distribute the code for free, even if you do not. This does NOT mean you can't sell it, or that you have to give away your program free at all. It just means that the first person you sell code to has the ability to give it away.

    People misunderstand the GPL because they see companies like Red Hat and Mandrake giving away almost all of their products off of FTP sites. They could, if they chose, only sell their CDs. The CDs, though, must have the source code for every GPL program on them. If they don't, they need to make that source code publicly available (like on a web site). If someone were to buy these CDs though, they have every right to take the GPL programs off the CD and redistribute them, for whatever price they want.

    Some of the other licenses you mentioned do not require that the source code be released when code is used in another program (called a "derivative" work). This appeals more to closed-source companies that want to take advantage of open-source products without releasing their source code. I'm not as familiar with the specifics of each license, but I'm fairly sure that the ability to keep source closed applies to BSD, Apache, and Artistic licenses.

    One more note about the GPL. One can distribute closed source programs that use GPL code, but the code must be seperated. A good example of this might be a program like the GIMP (image editor) with proprietary plugins. You can ship both together, since the GIMP [gimp.org] is self-contained, and your plugins can still be closed-source.

    In addition to the GPL, the LGPL [gnu.org] (Lesser General Public License) exists but is not recommended by RMS and the gang. It's used primarily for libraries and allows closed-source products to fully contain the LGPL code. Library designers use this because they want their programming code to be used with commercial products. An example of this is wxWindows [wxwindows.org], a cross-platform C++ GUI library.

    So basically the main reason that some people like GPL programs is that it does somewhat "promote" open-source, by requiring programs that use it to remain open-source for everyone. It's among the most restrictive and wordy licenses, you are correct, but I'm not familiar with any open-source license being completely challenged in court.

    Hope this helps.

  • Leave it out, user #3872. This joke got old years ago.

  • And this does what? (Score:3)

    by gatesh8r ( 182908 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:26PM (#149981)
    Now, before I begin, I would like to say that I feel that the GPL has a valid place in licences. There are many things that are useful with the GPL.

    Now you can have your Python interpetor as "free" software, weither gratis or what not. So? Unless you are -really- intrested in such a thing as working and re-distributing the work (I'm sure many are), I would say that the only thing that I'm not too sure on is any and all libs that can be used are/aren't GPL'ed (I feel that the LGPL on extra libs would be apporopriate; there are many uses for a Python script.) and you are a coder in python. I'm not a Python coder. I could care less.

    The GPL isn't the only open-source licence. I feel my work should be under an X11 licence, or a BSD-style licence, unless someone like M$ finds it useful. In that case, I would GPL it.

    The GPL is great, but if I'm working on this for a company (yeah, boo me while you go play Quake under its EULA) it's a hassle. RMS thinks that proprietary is the devil of programs. I don't quite agree. M$ is the devil of all programs; they abuse their position. Other proprietary things don't hurt unless you are the ones getting pissed on. How do you think I feel when I can't use hardware with a proprietary interface on Linux? Yet that same cheapo device works on my mom's computer and I get the good hardware. :-)

    Anyway, this seems to be more a rant imo. Though I don't feel it has to do with Python; nessiarly ;-) I like that it's GPL'ed, but what would happen if it was put under another open-source licence? Would it make /.?

  • What's wrong with this? It's important that people understand what licenses are compatible with the GPL. If you blindly go about merging GPL'd code with GPL-incompatible, you're violating license agreements. By dubbing the whole thing GPL, you're violating the non-GPL license. And by not doing so, you're violating the GPL license. That's just the way the GPL works. License compatibility has to be clearcut, otherwise the license is not enforceable. The list clearly shows that GPL has a lot of compatibility problems. If that's a problem for you, the solution is not to use the GPL'd code.
  • Well, would you rather watch any old basketball game, or one featuring your favorite team?

    Would you rather that your favorite team lost, or won?

    What team do most people in Los Angeles root for?

    And finally... can you guess what all this might have to do with the GPL and RMS? :)

  • Happy? (Score:5)

    by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:10PM (#149986) Journal
    Personally I'm a little tired of hearing about programs being "GPL compatble". I'm especially tired of hearing RMS whine about this subject.

    Why does it really matter if programs are GPL compatible? I understand the whole linking issue and legalities behind it still seems ridiculous to me.

    Let me explain my point of view: RMS whines about the freedoms of users and programmers regarding software, but what about the freedom to use the license that you want to for your software? I know RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL or a compatible license, but who out there believes that he wouldn't if he could?

    The impression I get is that RMS treats free software as a religion and like most religions it's followers not only believe that it is the only right one and all others should convert, but they preach it to everyone that they can regardless of wether they care or not. It's really annoying to me. (Please Note: I didn't intend this as an attack on religions, just an observation. I respect everyone's beliefs regardless of what they may be).

    Now my other opinion is that it's a little conceited to say that "If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL". I agree that most Linux distros have an incredibly high concentration of GPL software, but that's only Linux distros. What about commercial UNIX's and the BSD's?

    Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.

    <sarcasm>
    From this point forward I urge everyone to choose a license that is compatible with the NPL (Netscape Public License). I will create a list shortly and post it on the web somewhere and every free software developer should read this list and choose one on it for their software.
    </sarcasm>

    --
    Garett

  • I'm sorry, the proper terminology is now not Python, it's GNU/Python. Thank you.

    --RMS

    --

  • I'm disappointed to see that someone felt my comments were flaimbait.

    Perhaps I was not clear in my point, which was not relating to the accountability (or lack thereof) established in shrink-wrapped licenses, but more relating to the ability to have a company to rely on to provide primarily technical support. The software to which I was refering was the category of development tools, libraries and other resources such as embedded realtim operating systems. These pieces of software typically have comprehensive support contracts associated with their licenses, as well as financial non-performance penalties.

    These are things you simply can't get with OSS software regardless of weather it's GPL'd ordistributed under any other OSS license.

    Well, more precisely, most large corporations have not yet realized the value they can extract from OSS through contracting with OSS support companies such as NuSphere which supports MySQL, and others that commercially package OSS apps. My point here, and above is, that it doesn't matter weather softwar is GPL'd or not. OSS is OSS, plain and simple.

    --CTH


    ---

  • Free Software vs. Open Source, vs GPL'd (Score:3)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Thursday June 14, 2001 @07:33PM (#149993) Homepage Journal
    OK, so I'm not sure I see the value in apeasing the Free Software Foundation anymore. At one point they were the only folks championing a unique and at that time - new and different development and software distribution model, but at this point, there are enough open-source licenses out there which all offer substancially the same protections to the author of a product, and provide the same rights and restrictions on distribution.

    I understand the derivitive work licensing componant of the GPL, but that aside for the moment - assuming the author of the application in question has no interest in this provision, what is the real value in making your license GPL compatible? What does that buy you? I have yet to hear of a company that refuses to use non GPL compliant software. I have, on the other hand, dealt with many companies who refuse to use GPL's software due to the restrictions it introduces, as well as the general lack of accountbility which is an integral part of most open-source licenses.

    With this in mind, why would someone spend such inordinate amounts of time making software (it's license, rather) GPL compliant? It doesn't make the software any more free (monetarily speaking) or any more Open-Source... So why bother?

    Are there really people out there who refuse to use non-GPL's software or something?

    --CTH


    ---
  • Instead of flaming me, please explain what is so good about the GPL. Thanks in advance!

    Yeah, god knows nobody's ever done that here before.

    Nope, all in all I think flaming you might actually be more fun. And more useful to the human race. Idiot.

  • Your post may not have been intended as a flame, but it smells like a troll to me. I'll bite.

    The GPL is a choice. Some developers choose closed source. Some choose public domain. Some choose the BSD licence.

    The GPL ensures that no one has more (or less) control over the code than the author. You might prefer a different license, and you're free to use it on your code. If you have problems with the GPL, just don't use GPL programs. Write some new ones yourself.

    Art At Home [artathome.org]

  • Virginia _did_ pass the UCITA, making it about the last place in the USA you would want to litigate a free software case. The Python license had a forum-selection clause specifying that litigation concerning it would be in VA; this is obviously a bad idea, but besides that the FSF doesn't allow any forum-selection clause in GPL's.

    But there apparently were a couple of other issues which I don't understand -- there's a list of changes, but the only one explained in the posted letter from the FSF was eliminatiing the forum selection clause, and it's going to take more time than I am willing to put in even to find the original language.
  • pick any J. Random Licensing Agreement and you'll see words to the effect of "We promise nothing. We accept no responsibility. Don't be surprised if this software is utterly unfit for anything, including the task for which you are paying the license fee. Anything that happens is on your head. Now pay up, bitch."
    You forgot: "You are not allowed to fix the defects in this program yourself. You may pay us extra for tech support, but we do not guarantee that even that will make it work, or that our tech support people will tell you when your problem comes from a known bug that affects many people. We may sue if you benchmark the program without our permission, because we don't want you publicizing the bugs. When we issue a bug fix, we may make you buy the program again to get it. We don't guarantee that the next version of the program (which you will pay for) will fix the known bugs."

    This may be too complicated for pinhead executives to understand. Explain that it's like buying a used car "as-is" with the hood welded shut and a contract that does not allow you to fix it.
  • You don't have to declare variables and their type before use. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is bad. When I'm just playing around with a little code to see if something will work, I'd rather not have to go back to the top and insert a declaration every time I find I need a variable for a for loop or something. When I was first learning to program 30 years ago, as best I can remember FORTRAN didn't even _allow_ variable declarations except for arrays, and I think that worked out fairly well -- one less thing to worry about on the first few programs. The old unstructured BASIC was even better IMHO, someone with no idea at all of what they were doing could plunge in and start learning by writing programs that often worked. If Python will allow that approach to learning structured programming, even better. Many Computer Science professors will disagree about that ("they don't learn to plan ahead and map out their data structures"), but in my experience, no one can plan ahead _until_ they've written enough programs to get some idea of what they are doing.

    But when I write a serious program that has to work right even under conditions I didn't quite anticipate, I certainly want to list all the variables ahead of time, and to have the compiler tell me when I misspell one or use the wrong type. So being able to choose whether or not definitions are mandatory is ideal. Sounds like Python does that.
  • If I were to use a modified Linux kernel as the operating system for a VCR, plus an application program compiled with gnu C and using an LGPL'd library, then

    1) I would have to send Linus a copy of the kernel source code.
    2) I would have to provide the purchasers of the VCR some way to get the kernel source code.
    3) The kernel would be GPL.
    4) The application could be proprietary.

    The main problem I can see in this (aside from execs who believe M$ FUD), is that if we made extensive hardware-related changes to the kernel, being able to download the source code would make it easier for our competitors to reverse-engineer the product. However, in most cases this could be avoided by putting the hardware dependent stuff in the proprietary modules, and doing kernel changes only to trim out the unused pieces. (e.g., no disk drive, so delete all that...)

    Am I correctly interpreting the GPL?
  • First, you must understand that GPL was the first license to guarantee that a free software program remains free software after the act of distribution. The use of BSD stack in Windows and the existence of several proprietary versions of X and Apache are just some examples of freedom lost by users because of the license used. Having this in mind the phrase:

    "If you want to make sure that your free program is legal you should use a license that is compatible with the GPL"

    doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it ? If the first, and for some time, the only license that guarantees that users will have freedom to use, adapt, copy and redistribute, any free software license should be compatible with it, right ?

    Personally I think that RMS should revise the GPL instead of trying to get the whole world to use it.

    Here's an interesting point of view: if you believe in something (in this case free software) and dedicate your life to advocating that something, but the world isn't using right now, you should simply quit, be a buddy and give up all your work as others would like it, not as you which.

    Stallman's work is in advocating the GPL. Do you really believe it's reasonable for him to simply loose his principles for the comfort of others who don't believe in the same things ?

  • The joke is funny now as it ever was. Besides we all know by now that the real Bruce Perens. has a UID of 123221.

    -- Face it, at the end of the day, you've got to accept that I am a cunt.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close