"FWH" == Fred Wilson Horch <fhorch@ecoaccess.org> writes:
FWH> But it would be nice to hear what Guido thinks, and what FWH> Digital Creation thinks. I won't speak on behalf of DC, but I'll bet Guido is pretty tired of talking about it. :) FWH> Knowing that the copyright holders have made a conscious FWH> decision not to allow developers to obtain Python and Zope FWH> under the terms of the GPL in the belief that this allows FWH> people to do "whatever they want" with it does help us FWH> evaluate the long-term prospects for these systems in the FWH> marketplace. I'm not sure what point you're making. With respect to Python, the issue has been hashed to death over in c.l.py and other forums, so I think this will be my last post on the subject here. IMO, the Python 2.0.1 license is the best of all possible worlds. In the words of the FSF themselves: The License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions. This is a free software license and is compatible with the GNU GPL. Dual licensing (a la Perl) has practical problems, which have been raised in other forums, and you really want to avoid it if possible. Python 2.0.1's license allows Python to be linked with GPL'd software such as GNU readline. I don't see what advantages "allowing developers to obtain Python [...] under the terms of the GPL" would provide above and beyond that. Guido (and now, really the PSF) is clearly not concerned about freeloaders taking of Python and not contributing back, which is about the only additional thing a GPL release of Python could prevent. Any Python module or extension you write can now be legally released under the GPL and linked with Python. So if you feel that the GPL affords your code useful benefits and protections, you now have that option, whereas under Python 1.6, 2.0, or 2.1 you didn't. -Barry