Python is better than free (was Re: GNU wars again)
Paul Miller
>On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > It's free, and you're free not to use it if you don't want your code to be
> > free. It's called a trade-off. You get the combined efforts of
> thousands of
> > GNU programmers to help you solve your problem, and in turn you provide
> your
> > little bit of help back.
>
>Nice said, Cliff!
If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code under
BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
--
Paul T. Miller | pa...@fxtech.com | http://www.fxtech.com
Steve Holden
news:mailman.1002031212...@python.org...
>
> >On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > > It's free, and you're free not to use it if you don't want your code
to be
> > > free. It's called a trade-off. You get the combined efforts of
> > thousands of
> > > GNU programmers to help you solve your problem, and in turn you
provide
> > your
> > > little bit of help back.
> >
> >Nice said, Cliff!
>
> If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code under
> BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
> Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
>
Python can be safely used as a component in GPL'd systems. But that doesn't
mean that Python is only availabel under the GPL -- simply that if you
distribute Python as a component of your GPL'd system then anyone who
distributes a derived system must also make their (possibly-modified) source
available.
Viral? Not to the extent you (and Microsoft) appear to believe.
regards
Steve
Oleg Broytmann
> If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code under
> BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
> Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
I see your point. You use other's people work without paying them. GNU
GPL, at least, force you to pay (by publishing your code). You don't want
to pay, and Python license makes you happy :(
Oleg.
----
Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ p...@phd.pp.ru
Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Paul Miller
>On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 08:59:34AM -0500, Paul Miller wrote:
> > If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code under
> > BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
> > Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
>
> I see your point. You use other's people work without paying them. GNU
>GPL, at least, force you to pay (by publishing your code). You don't want
>to pay, and Python license makes you happy :(
>
>Oleg.
Trying to make me into a cheap-skate and a thief doesn't endear me too much
to you Oleg. You might want to tone down your GNU zealotry a tad.
The issue is not whether I use people's work without paying them - if they
didn't want me to, they would CHARGE for it. Part of Python's license is
there IS NO CHARGE. NONE. That happens to work nicely for me, as I make
commercial software. If I could pay the bills by giving away my code, I
probably would, but this isn't the case. Fortunately, Python does not
require me to make that choice.
And, unlike the GNU license, the "free" in the Python/BSD license is not
misleading. As others have rightfully pointed out, there is nothing free
about the GNU license.
Incidentally, I also maintain an open-source XML project, but under the
LGPL. I like giving people a little bit more freedom than the standard GNU
license does.
Cliff Wells
> If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code under
> BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
> Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
Okay. I'll buy that ;-)
--
Cliff Wells
Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308
(800) 735-0555 x308
Markus Schaber
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 08:59:34AM -0500, Paul Miller wrote:
>> If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code
>> under BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very
>> grateful to Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial
>> software.
>
> I see your point. You use other's people work without paying them.
> GNU
> GPL, at least, force you to pay (by publishing your code). You don't
> want to pay, and Python license makes you happy :(
Well - Even the GCC developers and thus the FSF itsself hat to accept
the "GCC Exception" in their license, AFAIR.
markus
--
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of
each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty
bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights
secure." -- Albert Einstein
Markus Schaber
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 08:59:34AM -0500, Paul Miller wrote:
>> If GNU code is FREE, then I'll have to say that Python (and code
>> under BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very
>> grateful to Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial
>> software.
>
> I see your point. You use other's people work without paying them.
> GNU
> GPL, at least, force you to pay (by publishing your code). You don't
> want to pay, and Python license makes you happy :(
I'm rather shure he pays. He publishes worthful articles here and
contributes to Python (at the minimum, he makes python more known and
widespread, which aquisits other supporters).
Its only that the Python copyright holders decided that their prize is
lower than the GPLs.
I personally would prefer the basic intention of the LGPL - one can
include my software in commercial products, but whenever he modifies my
software, he has to publish this modifications. But the LGPL seems a
little too complicated to express this.
mar "IANAL" kus
Oleg Broytmann
> Trying to make me into a cheap-skate and a thief doesn't endear me too much
> to you Oleg.
But of course!
> The issue is not whether I use people's work without paying them - if they
> didn't want me to, they would CHARGE for it.
This is exactly how the GPL works - it charges for my code. You can pay
me money, or you can pay me by opening your code.
Samuel Schulenburg
Sometimes you have code that you want to release with a commercial
product, that contains propriatary information about the internals in
your product. A GPL license would keep you from releasing this code
using Python.
If you want to use a commerical script language, it's hard to find one
that allows you to use it commerically, without adding restrictive
clauses on its use.
I have lost track of the number of script language's that I have been
exposed to while working for various companies in the disk drive
industries. All these script languagues were poorly developed, but
they were developed to get around the limitations provided by the
commerically available languages. Python was the first language I
found that meet the reqirements that I needed. ( Extendable, and
Embeddable)
Sam Schulenburg
Cliff Wells
> Sometimes you have code that you want to release with a commercial
> product, that contains propriatary information about the internals in
> your product. A GPL license would keep you from releasing this code
> using Python.
Actually, unless you were embedding Python in your app I don't think this is
true, since _your_ source would not in fact contain any GPL'd code.
Additionally, I expect the Python libraries would fall under LGPL so using
them would not "infect" your code.
Oleg Broytmann
> Sometimes you have code that you want to release with a commercial
> product, that contains propriatary information about the internals in
> your product. A GPL license would keep you from releasing this code
> using Python.
This is easily solvable: buy specially licensed version. GNU GPL allows
it. But do not take my code for nothing, please.
Oleg Broytmann
> > I see your point. You use other's people work without paying them. GNU
> >GPL, at least, force you to pay (by publishing your code). You don't want
> >to pay, and Python license makes you happy :(
>
>
> In other words, you support forced payment in terms of having to open one's
> code to the public... but you don't support forced payment in terms of
> forking over money for the right to use the code.
>
> So you don't want to pay cash, is what you're saying.
Not exactly. I prefer to be paid by code, but if you want to pay cash,
you are free (GPL philosophy is about freedom, after all!) to do it. You
can pass me money, or you can buy support, or you can buy specially licensed
version (of the same GPLed code).
Magnus Lie Hetland
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:01:11PM -0700, Samuel Schulenburg wrote:
> > Sometimes you have code that you want to release with a commercial
> > product, that contains propriatary information about the internals in
> > your product. A GPL license would keep you from releasing this code
> > using Python.
>
> This is easily solvable: buy specially licensed version. GNU GPL allows
> it. But do not take my code for nothing, please.
That is a valid point, and I won't say that one "should" use GPL or
something
else... But for the user of the licensed code (as opposed to the programmer)
getting something for free would seem "better" than paying for it, wouldn't
it? Now, whether one can afford to give away one's code for free is, of
course, an individual thing.
> Oleg.
--
Magnus Lie Hetland http://www.hetland.org
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in
it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
Magnus Lie Hetland
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:58:52AM -0500, Paul Miller wrote:
> > Trying to make me into a cheap-skate and a thief doesn't endear me too
much
> > to you Oleg.
>
> But of course!
>
> > The issue is not whether I use people's work without paying them - if
they
> > didn't want me to, they would CHARGE for it.
>
> This is exactly how the GPL works - it charges for my code. You can pay
> me money, or you can pay me by opening your code.
Is it really? Or is this the case when you use two different licenses,
one GPL and one commercial? In that case, this has nothing to do with
the GPL itself. If someone GPLs the code without having a separate
commercial license (which is the case with lots of free/opensource/whatever
projects) then all commercial developers can do is shy away from the
software. Right? (They could, of course, ask for another license, but,
again, that has nothing to do with the GPL.)
Richard Jones
> >On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > > It's free, and you're free not to use it if you don't want your code to
> > > be free. It's called a trade-off. You get the combined efforts of
> >
> > thousands of
> >
> > > GNU programmers to help you solve your problem, and in turn you provide
> >
> > your
> >
> > > little bit of help back.
> >
> >Nice said, Cliff!
>
> BSD-style licenses) is BETTER THAN FREE. Frankly, I'm very grateful to
> Guido for allowing Python to be used freely in commercial software.
Hear hear! And our use of python in our commercial software does not stop us
from contributing back to the community, which we do quite a lot!
Richard
Chris Watson
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 11:58:52AM -0500, Paul Miller wrote:
> > Trying to make me into a cheap-skate and a thief doesn't endear me too
> > much to you Oleg.
>
> But of course!
>
> > The issue is not whether I use people's work without paying them - if
> > they didn't want me to, they would CHARGE for it.
>
> This is exactly how the GPL works - it charges for my code. You can pay
> me money, or you can pay me by opening your code.
Thats called extorsion.
Chris
Delaney, Timothy
Time to wade in.
My preferences lie very strongly with BSD-style licenses (basically, do what
you want with this). I personally feel that code should be available to be
used in whatever way someone wants. This is not to say that all code should
be without charge - depending on what it is, I would be quite willing to pay
a (one-off) fee to be able to *then* do whatever I wanted with the code
(with some caveats - I would not expect to be able to distribute code in
unmodified form if it required a fee for me to obtain it in the first
place).
I find the GPL is one of the best ways to ensure that your code will not be
used by other people, unless you get lucky and it becomes a big open source
project (note - no capitals on open source, so no one jump on me for using
the term incorrectly). For every large GPL project that's well supported by
many developers, there are thousands of bits of GPL code which are never
used by anyone except the original author.
With BSD-style licenses, you find that you code is more likely to be used by
someone else. GPL code is often useful, but not used. I know I have many
times looked at something, thought I would like to incorporate it into
something I was working on (usually public domain or open source), then
noticed it was GPL and decided not to use it because it would restrict what
others could do with my code.
However, GPL is *not* extortion. The writer of a piece of code has every
right to want to protect, control or charge for it.
Tim Delaney
Joshua Macy
Delaney, Timothy wrote
> However, GPL is *not* extortion. The writer of a piece of code has every
> right to want to protect, control or charge for it.
>
Not if you take Stallman (et al's) position seriously. I agree that
GPL is not extortion, but that the writer of a piece of code has every
right to want to protect, control, or charge for it is something that
Stallman seems to regard as an unfortunate historical accident; the GPL
is his best attempt to simulate a regime where that isn't true under the
rules of a regime where it is.
Even though I've released some of my Python work under the GPL, I'm
coming around to Tim Peter's way of thinking: just release things into
the public domain and have done with it. No worries about enforcing the
license because no licence.
"free"-as-in-"free"'ly yrs,
Joshua
Chris Watson
> > From: Chris Watson [mailto:op...@voodooland.net]
> right to want to protect, control or charge for it.
That's true. But dont call it Free code if you do. Because it is not free.
Look up free in the dictionary. That is the ONLY definition that should be
followed. Not whatever twisted version the FSF and GNU people want to use.
The gernal gist of any dictionary is its free if its free from control,
opression, or restrictions.
Chris
Chris Watson
> in that message. I know - I copied the text into my editor and did a
> case-insensitive search.
>
> I dislike the GPL. If you had read my message, you would have seen that. I
> never use the term "free" with licenses as the term has become useless in a
> discussion - argue all you want about dictionary definitions, that will
> *never* convince people on the other side of the fence to yourself. After
> all, I am sure that *every* dictionary has multiple meanings for the term
> "free".
>
> Taking things out of context does not make your argument any stronger. You
> should *not* have only quoted the *sole* part of my message which conceded
> the right of someone to protect their work in the manner that they deem
> fit.
My implication wasnt clear. I wasnt implying YOU were implying it was free.
I was merely stating in the gernal sense that putting restrictions on code,
such as the GPL does, should not be allowed to be called free. It is not
free. But I didnt make that clear.
And no not every dictionary has the same meaning but they all state that
freedom must be clear of control, or restrictions. And thats in every
dictionary.
And I quoted the whole message for your satisfaction.
Chris
Delaney, Timothy
Tim Delaney
Gerhard Häring
> My preferences lie very strongly with BSD-style licenses (basically,
> do what you want with this). I personally feel that code should be
> available to be used in whatever way someone wants. This is not to say
> that all code should be without charge - depending on what it is, I
> would be quite willing to pay a (one-off) fee to be able to *then* do
> whatever I wanted with the code (with some caveats - I would not
> expect to be able to distribute code in unmodified form if it required
> a fee for me to obtain it in the first place).
I agree completely. I can imagine reasons why one would prefer to
license something under the GPL, apart from believing into that Free
Software stuff: if you want to make money from alternative licensing
forms. But *please*, then indicate that you are willing to license the
code under a commercial license, and *pleae* be clear what the price of
this is. I hate the usual ACT, Cygnus, Transvirtual, whatever statements
along the line "We offer alternative licensing forms. Please contact our
sales department." Ugh. I won't.
> I find the GPL is one of the best ways to ensure that your code will not be
> used by other people.
Yup. I avoid it almost always. I've never tried to make money off my
Open Source code, but I want it to stay free, not "Free".
I don't have problems with GPL'ed utilities, but I do have a big problem
with GPL'ed libraries. These are very annoying, IMNSHO. If they're
actually useful (most of them aren't), sooner or later somebody will
rewrite them under a BSD license or just in-house, anyway. So it only
leads to duplicated effort.
What I hate most is that kneejerk-use-of-GPL I see in all those little
Open-Source projects. GPL is the predominant form of licensing in the OS
world. Just go to freshmeat.net and have a look at the statistics. I
believe most of the authors don't know the implications of using the
GPL.
If it were something significant like a Python ODBC interface, I'd
understand this, but something almost trivial like a Python library that
does fast MD5 sums on files, please! (I rewrote that under a BSD
license, for example).
Gerhard
--
mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239
web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ OpenPGP public key id 86AB43C0
public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20 A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0
reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b')))
Delaney, Timothy
> From: Delaney, Timothy
>
> Did you even *read* my message? ...
Tim Delaney
Oleg Broytmann
> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:54 pm, Delaney, Timothy wrote:
> > > From: Chris Watson [mailto:op...@voodooland.net]
> > However, GPL is *not* extortion. The writer of a piece of code has every
> > right to want to protect, control or charge for it.
>
> That's true. But dont call it Free code if you do. Because it is not free.
> Look up free in the dictionary. That is the ONLY definition that should be
> followed. Not whatever twisted version the FSF and GNU people want to use.
> The gernal gist of any dictionary is its free if its free from control,
> opression, or restrictions.
I disagree. Some restrictions must be imposed. I don't want your fist to
fly freely into my nose; that why I want to impose restrictions. Absolute
freedom is impossible in this not-so-ideal world. I don't want arrognt and
greedy Big Power Companies freely take the ball and run with it. GNU GPL
looks very good balanced for me.
Erik Max Francis
That is getting close to the silliest thing I've heard of. It's open
source software. You play by the rules (the license), or you don't use
it. It's hardly extortion to make you open source your own software if
you choose to use mine, if I so wish it. After all, I could _not_ make
the source available at all, and only let you use it under license if
you pay me. Is that extortion?
Calling putting a license on software that I'm making publicly available
"extortion" is ludicrous.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ A wise man never loses anything if he have himself.
\__/ Montaigne
Maths reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/maths/
A mathematics reference.
Lee Morgan
>
> Actually, unless you were embedding Python in your app I don't think this is
> true, since _your_ source would not in fact contain any GPL'd code.
> Additionally, I expect the Python libraries would fall under LGPL so using
> them would not "infect" your code.
>
This may be off topic but what does it mean to release a python module/package
under LGPL?
An import is not a linking ... so does it mean I can't use it in a commercial
product? I'd like to think I could use it if I released any changes I made to
the module/package - but I don't think thats the case.
(Commercial as in closed source)
> --
> Cliff Wells
> Software Engineer
> Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
> (503) 978-6726 x308
> (800) 735-0555 x308
>
--
Lee Morgan
Markus Schaber
> Cliff Wells <logiplex...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> Actually, unless you were embedding Python in your app I don't think
>> this is true, since _your_ source would not in fact contain any GPL'd
>> code. Additionally, I expect the Python libraries would fall under
>> LGPL so using them would not "infect" your code.
>>
>
> This may be off topic but what does it mean to release a python
> module/package under LGPL?
>
> An import is not a linking ... so does it mean I can't use it in a
> commercial product? I'd like to think I could use it if I released any
> changes I made to the module/package - but I don't think thats the
> case.
I would think that importing in python is some kind of linking.
Dynamically and at run-time, but it is some sort of linking.
markus
--
You don't have to be Microsoft to suck... but it helps.
(Tim Hammerquist in comp.lang.python)
Alex Martelli
news:mailman.1002078843...@python.org...
You seem to be using a very poor dictionary. "Free", like all important
words in natural language (study Wittgenstein's "Philosophische
Untersuchungen"
for a deeper understanding of why), is fuzzy and heavily overloaded.
Tracing
its historical roots, we come to Sanskrit "priya" -- and the closest English
translation I can give of THAT is "own", as in "mine own", "prized",
"beloved".
Merriam-Webster online, hardly the widest dictionary in common use:-), gives
just fifteen root meanings for today's use of "free" in English. Just these
should suffice to show that the singular in "the ONLY definition" is utterly
inappropriate. Are you, as a US citizen, "not free" because you DO suffer
restrictions -- indispensable to ensure all other citizens are just as free
as you are? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends short of the tip of my
nose", and all that (the argument by symmetry is best developed IMHO in
Kant's
"Kritik der praktischen Vernunft").
Specifically, are you made non-free by the restriction (14th emendment, I
believe?) that you cannot be sold nor sell yourself as a slave -- is your
freedom nullified by being enshrined as permanent and unalienable? Most
US citizens would not support such a contention today, I believe.
Fight your political battles for or against any kind of software licence
however you wish -- many of us don't care that much either way -- but
don't think you'll ever get away with claiming "the dictionary" (as if
there was only one!) somehow supports your favoured "ONLY definition"
(as if there was only one!). Not as long as some of us deeply and
passionately care about *words* -- their history, their usage, their
inter-relationship, the splendid web we can weave with them. Care to
the point of spending time on Usenet which we DEFINITELY should be
employing more productively, sigh:-).
Alex
Paolo Invernizzi
Paolo Invernizzi
"Alex Martelli" <al...@aleax.it> wrote in message
news:9pefbe$8c1$1...@serv1.iunet.it...
> "Chris Watson" <op...@voodooland.net> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1002078843...@python.org...
...
...
Joshua Macy
Joshua Macy wrote:
> Even though I've released some of my Python work under the GPL, I'm
> coming around to Tim Peter's way of thinking: just release things into
> the public domain and have done with it.
D'oh! Apostrophe error. Tim Peters' way of thinking.
Joshua
Steve Holden
this point? I'm sure we all agree that anyone is free to release *their*
software (as opposed to somebody else's) under any licensing form they want.
Given *that* basic freedom, the rest is just opinion.
and-opinions-can-be-whatever-you-want-ly y'rs - steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/
"Oleg Broytmann" <p...@phd.pp.ru> wrote in message
news:mailman.1002084903...@python.org...
Cliff Wells
> >
> > This is exactly how the GPL works - it charges for my code. You can
> > pay me money, or you can pay me by opening your code.
>
> Thats called extorsion.
>
No, extortion is when I demand your code at gunpoint or by threatening to
reveal that you subscribe to the Visual Basic mailing list as well.
Laura Creighton
in droves. This is how much some people hate discussions about the GPL.
Laura Creighton
xxxx
> Cliff Wells wrote:
>> On Tuesday 2001-10-02 18:49, Chris Watson wrote:
>> Thats called extorsion.
> No, extortion is when I demand your code at gunpoint or by threatening to
> reveal that you subscribe to the Visual Basic mailing list as well.
Or when the robber says, "We're from the IRS or the state tax board
and we'll bull-doze your house and seize all your financial accounts
if you don't pay up 'voluntarily'."
Lee Morgan
>
> I would think that importing in python is some kind of linking.
> Dynamically and at run-time, but it is some sort of linking.
>
Hmm, how about if py2exe is used to distribute? You can't then get the LGPL
code, change it and relink it to alter behaviour.
Actually, as its a zip archive, maybe you could...I wonder if that would that
count?
--
Lee Morgan
Markus Schaber
The decisions are difficult in those cases, not only concerning py2exe.
How about compiling a GPL application against a GPL'ed implementation
of an API, and afterwards an user running the compiled program with a
closed-source dynamic linked library implementing the same API?
Isn't this technically similar to run a GPL java class (developed e. G.
using the GCC Java compiler and libs) inside a closed-source virtula
machine (like the one from sun?
And including binary-only firmware into linux kernel drivers?
There are lots of discussions about this, and the fact that there are
so much "special cases" is the fact I dislike about the GPL.
But the whole discussion is off topic here, so I put an F'up2 me.
Magnus Lie Hetland
news:3BBABE1C...@sneakemail.com...
Well, actually, according to The Elements of Style by Strunk & White,
it should be
Tim Peters's way of thinking
("Peters'" is a plural possessive, I think :)
> Joshua
Steve Holden
news:9pimak$c22$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> "Joshua Macy" <l0819m0v...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:3BBABE1C...@sneakemail.com...
> >
> >
> > Joshua Macy wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Even though I've released some of my Python work under the GPL, I'm
> > > coming around to Tim Peter's way of thinking: just release things into
> > > the public domain and have done with it.
> >
> >
> >
> > D'oh! Apostrophe error. Tim Peters' way of thinking.
>
> Well, actually, according to The Elements of Style by Strunk & White,
> it should be
>
> Tim Peters's way of thinking
>
> ("Peters'" is a plural possessive, I think :)
>
(assuming they lived together) as the Peters's home. Since (and how could it
be else) there is only one Tim, you should write about Tim Peters' way of
thinking.
but-then-i'm-english-so-what-do-i-know-ly y'rs - steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/
Courageous
>Or when the robber says, "We're from the IRS or the state tax board
>and we'll bull-doze your house and seize all your financial accounts
>if you don't pay up 'voluntarily'."
It _is_ voluntary. You agreed when you agreed to the social contract
implied in your citizenship.
C//
Magnus Lie Hetland
[snip]
> This may be off topic but what does it mean to release a python
module/package
> under LGPL?
>
> An import is not a linking ... so does it mean I can't use it in a
commercial
> product? I'd like to think I could use it if I released any changes I made
to
> the module/package - but I don't think thats the case.
Hardly... Placing the line
import some_gnu_module
in your own code wouldn't have anything to do with the license of
some_gnu_module
at all. As long as you are allowed to distribute some_gnu_module (separately
from your software, as it will be unless you cut-and-paste it into your
code) there shouldn't be any problem. It's like if I did
os.system('some_gnu_program')
Certainly that wouldn't infect my program with a gnu license...
Magnus Lie Hetland
news:mailman.100212930...@python.org...
> Stop discussing the GPL in comp.lang.python. It makes people unsubscribe
> in droves. This is how much some people hate discussions about the GPL.
>
> Laura Creighton
Hm. It was getting a bit crowded anyway... <wink>
Mark Hadfield
> but-then-i'm-english-so-what-do-i-know-ly y'rs - steve
Yeah, but you know as well as I do that the worldwide language is only
called "English" for historical reasons.
---
Mark Hadfield
m.had...@niwa.cri.nz http://katipo.niwa.cri.nz/~hadfield
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research
--
Posted from clam.niwa.cri.nz [202.36.29.1]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Cliff Wells
> > Cliff Wells <logiplex...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
Hey, I didn't write that. Be careful how you [snip].
Cliff Wells
Oh, I remember now... when I chose to be born here they made me sign that
contract... I guess I should have read the fine print, but hey, I was young.
Erik Max Francis
> Hey, I didn't write that. Be careful how you [snip].
What was that? The last word in your post got snipped. :-)
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Things are as they are because they were as they were.
\__/ Thomas Gold
Product's Quake III Arena Tips / http://www.bosskey.net/
Tips and tricks from the absolute beginner to the Arena Master.
Tim Peters
> Nope. If Tim were married, you would write about his and his wife's home
> (assuming they lived together) as the Peters's home. Since (and how
> could it be else) there is only one Tim, you should write about Tim
> Peters' way of thinking.
Well, if there is only one Tim, we should drop the redundant surname and
just say it's Tim's simulation of thinking.
BTW, doesn't this look fishy to you (s/Peters/Holden/)?:
Nope. If Steve were married, you would write about his and his wife's
home (assuming they lived together) as the Holden's home. Since (and
how could it be else) there is only one Steve, you should write about
Steve Holden' way of thinking.
When I was about 12, a teacher said Peter's or Peters's was acceptable for
the singular possessive (I stuck with Peters's), and Peterses' for the
plural (I stuck with Peters', and got extra credit later <wink>).
> but-then-i'm-english-so-what-do-i-know-ly y'rs - steve
You *should* know that America fought a bloody war to get away from your
illogical grammar rules, and it can happen again.
still-confused-about-fingersbreadth-vs-fingerbreadth's-ly y'rs - tim
Steve Holden
different Englishes.
By the way, while everyone's got their grammar books out, what's the
possessive of "class" and "classes".
Do we write "this class's __init__() method" and "those classes' __init__()
methods", or what?
regards
Steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/
"Mark Hadfield" <m.had...@niwa.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:00a001c14d26$30fce2a0$d938a8c0@Hadfield...
Steve Holden
news:mailman.1002242226...@python.org...
> [Steve Holden]
> > Nope. If Tim were married, you would write about his and his wife's home
> > (assuming they lived together) as the Peters's home. Since (and how
> > could it be else) there is only one Tim, you should write about Tim
> > Peters' way of thinking.
>
> Well, if there is only one Tim, we should drop the redundant surname and
> just say it's Tim's simulation of thinking.
>
readership.
> BTW, doesn't this look fishy to you (s/Peters/Holden/)?:
>
> Nope. If Steve were married, you would write about his and his wife's
> home (assuming they lived together) as the Holden's home. Since (and
> how could it be else) there is only one Steve, you should write about
> Steve Holden' way of thinking.
>
Not fishy, just plain wrong. But a global replacement of this nature makes
about as much sense as replacing all the colons in a Python program with
semicolons. There are rules, you know. [Sorry, I forgot, you're American]
;-)
> When I was about 12, a teacher said Peter's or Peters's was acceptable for
> the singular possessive (I stuck with Peters's), and Peterses' for the
> plural (I stuck with Peters', and got extra credit later <wink>).
>
> > but-then-i'm-english-so-what-do-i-know-ly y'rs - steve
>
> You *should* know that America fought a bloody war to get away from your
> illogical grammar rules, and it can happen again.
>
Away with your nonsense. You just couldn't stand paying taxes to finance the
English in their attempts to steal land (and just about everything else)
from everybody else in the world. You wanted to steal this land for
yourselves.
> still-confused-about-fingersbreadth-vs-fingerbreadth's-ly y'rs - tim
>
fingersbreadth is the plural unit of measurement, fingerbreadth's is the
possessive of one of them.
"When the size of the disks is increased to five fingersbreadth, less than a
fingerbreadth's span separates them".
or-did-you-mean-fingerbreadths-ly y'rs - steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/
Mikael Olofsson
On 05-Oct-2001 Steve Holden wrote:
> Well, I could even take exception to the word "it", since there are many
> different Englishes.
The following is hearsay:
An English royalty is said to have claimed "English is not a worldwide
language - bad English is."
/Mikael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: Mikael Olofsson <mik...@isy.liu.se>
WWW: http://www.dtr.isy.liu.se/dtr/staff/mikael
Phone: +46 - (0)13 - 28 1343
Telefax: +46 - (0)13 - 28 1339
Date: 05-Oct-2001
Time: 08:02:36
/"\
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML Mail
/ \
This message was sent by XF-Mail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Linköpings kammarkör: www.kammarkoren.com
Christopher A. Craig
> BTW, doesn't this look fishy to you (s/Peters/Holden/)?:
>
> Nope. If Steve were married, you would write about his and his wife's
> home (assuming they lived together) as the Holden's home. Since (and
> how could it be else) there is only one Steve, you should write about
> Steve Holden' way of thinking.
This doesn't negate the fact that Steve was correct. Names ending in
"s" are a special case for apostrophe rules.
> When I was about 12, a teacher said Peter's or Peters's was acceptable for
> the singular possessive (I stuck with Peters's), and Peterses' for the
> plural (I stuck with Peters', and got extra credit later <wink>).
What you were told by you teacher seems far more fishy. Try
s/Peters/Chris/
When I was about 12, a teacher said Chri's or Chris's was
^^^^^^
acceptable for the singular possessive (I stuck with Chris's), and
Chrises' for the plural (I stuck with Chris', and got extra credit
later <wink>).
trying-to-decide-if-this-is-more-off-topic-than-the-gpl'ly yours,
--
Christopher A. Craig <com-n...@ccraig.org>
"I don't know of any version of Unix on Intel that is not technically superior
to Windows NT." -- Nicholas Petreley (InfoWorld Columnist)
Travers Naran
news:mailman.1002262146...@python.org...
>
> On 05-Oct-2001 Steve Holden wrote:
> > Well, I could even take exception to the word "it", since there are
many
> > different Englishes.
>
> The following is hearsay:
>
> An English royalty is said to have claimed "English is not a worldwide
> language - bad English is."
<ObGharlane>
The proper term for a singular member of the English royalty is 'royal'.
"... is said to have claimed..." is better written as "...supposedly
claimed.." The passive voice is poor style.
The '-' is properly written as '--' with no spaces on either side.
So, your revised statement would be:
An English Royal supposedly claimed: "English is not a worldwide
language--bad english is."
</ObGharlane>
:-)
I now return you to our regularly scheduled GPL war...
Joseph A Knapka
>
> "Magnus Lie Hetland" <m...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:9pimak$c22$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> > "Joshua Macy" <l0819m0v...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BBABE1C...@sneakemail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Macy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Even though I've released some of my Python work under the GPL, I'm
> > > > coming around to Tim Peter's way of thinking: just release things into
> > > > the public domain and have done with it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > D'oh! Apostrophe error. Tim Peters' way of thinking.
> >
> > Well, actually, according to The Elements of Style by Strunk & White,
> > it should be
> >
> > Tim Peters's way of thinking
> >
> > ("Peters'" is a plural possessive, I think :)
> >
> Nope. If Tim were married, you would write about his and his wife's home
> (assuming they lived together) as the Peters's home.
I think that would be "the Peterses' home". One Peters, two
Peterses. One Peters's way of thinking, two Peterses' home. And
I don't think Strunk and White would give out any lollipops for any
usage whatsoever of "Peters'" in this context. But then, I'm just
a guy with a degree in English (from an American university [he said,
revealing the ultimate bankruptcy of his entire argument]), so what
do I know? :-)
English-3000, anyone?
-- Joe
# "You know how many remote castles there are along the
# gorges? You can't MOVE for remote castles!" - Lu Tze re. Uberwald
# Linux MM docs:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jknapka/linux-mm/vmoutline.html
Magnus Lie Hetland
news:3BBE4E12...@earthlink.net...[snip]
> > > Well, actually, according to The Elements of Style by Strunk & White,
> > > it should be
> > >
> > > Tim Peters's way of thinking
> > >
> > > ("Peters'" is a plural possessive, I think :)
> > >
> > Nope.
Feel free to contradict Strunk & White, if you like. I won't, though.
> > If Tim were married, you would write about his and his wife's home
> > (assuming they lived together) as the Peters's home.
You mean that "Peters" is plural of "Peters" to you? I'd prefer
"Peterses" (like Joe) as a plural myself.
My comment about "Peters'" being a plural possessive would, of
course refer to the plural of "Peter", not a pluralisation of
"Peters".
> I think that would be "the Peterses' home". One Peters, two
> Peterses. One Peters's way of thinking, two Peterses' home. And
> I don't think Strunk and White would give out any lollipops for any
> usage whatsoever of "Peters'" in this context.
Exactly.
> But then, I'm just
> a guy with a degree in English (from an American university [he said,
> revealing the ultimate bankruptcy of his entire argument]), so what
> do I know? :-)
Hey, I'm not even a native speaker... (Although I've been speaking the
language since I was about 6.) I'm just a pedant, I guess :)
And, just for the reference, here is a quote from Strunk & White; this
is in fact the first rule in the first chapter :)
"""
1. Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
Charles's friend
Burnes's poems
the witch's malice
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in
-es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for
conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms
as Moses' Laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis
The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and
ours have no apostrophe. Indefinite pronouns, however, use
the apostrophe to show possession.
one's right
somebody else's umbrella
A common error is to write it's for its, or vice versa. The
first is a contraction, meaning "it is." The second is a
possessive.
It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas.
"""
And that's all they have to say about the matter. For more
information, take a look at the book "Usage and Abusage"
by Eric Partridge and Janet Whitcut (Ed), which has a nice
(and very thorough) chapter on the genitive.
> English-3000, anyone?
Mememe! :)
> -- Joe
Joshua Macy
Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
>
> Feel free to contradict Strunk & White, if you like. I won't, though.
OK, I will. Strunk & White is fine, and I use it myself, but the use
of the possessive apostrophe is, and has always been highly contentious.
According to The Oxford Companion to the English Language:
"...there appears from the evidence that there was never a golden age
in in which the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe in
English were clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most
educated people...[snip restatement of 20th c. rules essentially the
same as S&W]...beyond this point difficulties and inconsistencies are as
common in the 1990s as in earlier times, especially with proper
nouns...[snip discussion of ommission of ' in place names and
organization names]...There is widespread inconsistency and uncertainty
in the use of the apostrophe when a singular noun already ends in
-s...[snip discussion of ancient names such as Xerxes]...With short
names, an extra syllable is generally pronounced, although the
possessive can be written either way: Mr Harris' job, Mr Harris's job;
Keats' poetry, Keats's poetry..." - The Oxford Companion to the English
Language, p. 75-76
The Chicago Manual of Style (section 6.30, I believe) allows that with
polysyllabic personal names ending in a z sound, many writers and
editors now use the possessive apostrophe without an accompanying s,
e.g. Dickens' but Harriss's. Hence, Peters'. This is acceptable usage
in a manuscript prepared according to the manual.
The Grammar Lady (http://www.grammarlady.com) is even more liberal,
allowing the ' without-s form for any personal name ending in s.
This probably started as a hyper-generalization of the exception
mentioned in Strunk and White for certain ancient names such as Moses
and Jesus, but if it's common enough to rate an
allowable-if-used-consistently by the CMoS, it's good enough for me.
and-if-it's-good-enough-for-Moses-it's-good-enough-for-Tim-Peters-<wink>-ly
yrs,
Joshua
Peter Hansen
>
> The simple solution is, of course, to not allow people with names ending in
> 's' to own anything.
How, then, would you refer to their lack of possessions?
Clearly the only viable solution is to eliminate them altogether. Or at
least this thread. :)
--
----------------------
Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
pe...@engcorp.com
Aahz Maruch
Laura Creighton <l...@strakt.com> wrote:
>
>Stop discussing the GPL in comp.lang.python. It makes people unsubscribe
>in droves. This is how much some people hate discussions about the GPL.
Oooo! A meta-discussion about what to post! ;-)
Seriously, I think that as long as an appropriate Subject: line is used,
people can easily killfile any such discussions they hate.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2001 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
We must not let the evil of a few trample the freedoms of the many.
Grant Edwards
>In article <mailman.100212930...@python.org>,
>Laura Creighton <l...@strakt.com> wrote:
>>
>>Stop discussing the GPL in comp.lang.python. It makes people unsubscribe
>>in droves. This is how much some people hate discussions about the GPL.
>
>Oooo! A meta-discussion about what to post! ;-)
And a ctrl-meta-discussion about the meta-discussion about what
to post! It's getting absolutely post-bozotic...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want you to
at MEMORIZE the collected
visi.com poems of EDNA ST VINCENT
MILLAY... BACKWARDS!!
Ken Seehof
Why do you even respond to people who make useless posts
like that? It's not funny. It just wastes space in peoples mail
boxes. Totally pointless. I can't stand people who have nothing
better to do than waste time responding to ctrl-alt-meta-discussions.
Just ignore them okay? They are almost as bad as GPL threads.
Thanks.
Copyright 2001, Ken Seehof
This message is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
This message is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
See the GNU General Public License for more details.
Paul Boddie
>
> OK, I will. Strunk & White is fine, and I use it myself, but the use
> of the possessive apostrophe is, and has always been highly contentious.
Who are these Strunk and White people anyway? (Serious question - I
assume it's an American English style manual people keep referring to,
or something, but I can't be bothered to search for it.) They must be
rich by now, though. ;-)
> According to The Oxford Companion to the English Language:
>
> "...there appears from the evidence that there was never a golden age
> in in which the rules for the use of the possessive apostrophe in
> English were clear-cut and known, understood, and followed by most
> educated people...
[...]
This sounds very familiar. I was once so motivated to consult the
various authoritative texts on this subject myself, and the most
honest ones seemed to admit that the apostrophe is something
introduced into the English language as an additional feature - rather
like list comprehensions and Python, I suppose ;-) - and that one
likely source is French, which doesn't even use the apostrophe to
indicate possession. Perhaps some users of English liked some aspects
of the ways that French used it and then adapted it later to suit
other purposes.
Mr Hetland will possibly confirm that once upon a time English looked
more similar to his native language in the way it presented possession
(just add an "s" and forget about strange symbols), but the apostrophe
as possession indicator seems to want to conquer other languages too.
> and-if-it's-good-enough-for-Moses-it's-good-enough-for-Tim-Peters-<wink>-ly
Moses is to the Bible what Tim Peters is to Strunk and White (or
should it be the other way round?)-ly,
Paul
Ken Guest
> Joshua Macy <l0819m0v...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<3BBF2751...@sneakemail.com>...
> >
> Moses is to the Bible what Tim Peters is to Strunk and White (or
> should it be the other way round?)-ly,
and what exactly does this have to do with python?
I thought this was a python list not a linquistics list.
k.
Nicola Musatti
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:01:11PM -0700, Samuel Schulenburg wrote:
> > Sometimes you have code that you want to release with a commercial
> > product, that contains propriatary information about the internals in
> > your product. A GPL license would keep you from releasing this code
> > using Python.
>
> This is easily solvable: buy specially licensed version. GNU GPL allows
> it. But do not take my code for nothing, please.
I may be wrong, but I don't think that the original intent behind
CopyLeft and then GPL was to obtain retribution. Rather, it was meant to
prevent the offspring of "proprietarized" GNU software, obtained by
making small, proprietary changes to freely available software. In other
words, it's the "embrace and innovate" kind of policy they were setup
against.
Cheers,
Nicola Musatti
Steve Holden
(well, newsgroup in my case), but people do wibble now and then.
sorry-this-wasn't-about-python-either-ly y'rs - steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/
Andrew Dalke
>and what exactly does this have to do with python?
>I thought this was a python list not a linquistics list.
It's the patented (but licensed without a fee) c.l.py
flame supressent system in action. It managed to subvert
a typical and never-ending flare fest on the meaning of
"free" into a discussion on the use of the apostrophe.
that's-Tim-Peters'-fo'c'sle-ly y'rs
Andrew
Grant Edwards
> Why do you even respond to people who make useless posts like
> that? It's not funny. It just wastes space in peoples mail
> boxes.
[...]
> Copyright 2001, Ken Seehof
>
> This message is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>
> This message is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> See the GNU General Public License for more details.
My post is a waste of space?
As opposed to the valuable content in that last bit?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I KAISER ROLL?! What
at good is a Kaiser Roll
visi.com without a little COLE SLAW
on the SIDE?
Paul Rubin
> > This message is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
> > of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >
>
>
> As opposed to the valuable content in that last bit?
Indeed. Newsgroup posts should use the GFDL (www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html)
rather than the GPL ;-).
Joshua Macy
Paul Boddie wrote:
>
> Who are these Strunk and White people anyway? (Serious question - I
> assume it's an American English style manual people keep referring to,
> or something, but I can't be bothered to search for it.) They must be
> rich by now, though. ;-)
Strunk & White are William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, authors of The
Elements of Style, which is pretty much *the* American English style
manual...all the books you've ever seen called The Elements of ____
Style (e.g. The Elements of Programming Style by Kernighan and Plauger)
are patterned after it. E.B. White was a famous essayist (writing for
the New Yorker for many years) and author of Charlotte's Web; William
Strunk, Jr. was a college English professor of his. The Elements of
Style started as a textbook written and privately printed by Strunk, and
was revised by White. It's a slim volume, weighing in at 85 pages, and
is almost Pythonic in its pithiness.
Joshua