license
Thomas Stover
that mean in terms GPL compliance? With regards to applications that you
use it with. I suppose since it's the end user that is doing the
"linking" that means it wasn't "distributed" while linked together
(unless of course one did). The question came up in conversation, and I
realized I'm not sure if "modules" are treated differently than other
libraries.
I would also like to ask the creators to consider a move to L-GPL. For
instance, I was thinking about integrating a python console into an
in-house program in a similar fashion to parasite. It occurred to me
that the best thing would be to actually just use parasite. If the
license mix in question permitted, there might be a way to expose a
general purpose "send such-and-such type object to the console"
facility. Then the entire parasite module becomes more of a widget.
Think of all the other awesome libraries that people use in both C and
python (like gtk) that would fit nicely into such free form
applications. Example: let's say you had a plpot graph inside a gtk
widow in a C application. Some hacking with parasite and - bam - now
that window has an interactive python console attached that is also
attached to everything else. One event loop, one address space. It's
not hard to imagine an experimental do-anything shell-gui-web-app gene
spliced mix of say webkit, gtk, python, kitchen sink. Just ideas...
Totally unrelated: what is the "svn update" equivalent command for git?
Seems silly to have to check the whole thing out again. I'm pretty sure
I'm missing pieces of my git installation....
David Trowbridge
That said, automake installed that COPYING file for us, and we didn't catch it. I don't think Christian or I had any intention of licensing parasite as anything other than MIT.
-David