Re: [Zope-dev] ZPL and GPL
Jerome Alet wrote I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed.
Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make the world a better place? Anthony, who's seen too much of the GPLd-for-GPLs-sake. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Jerome Alet wrote I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed.
Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make the world a better place?
For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity. The problem with plain GPL, as mentionned in my previous message, is that this would make a lot of people run away. However the LGPL seems to be a very good choice, because this wouldn't allow the core (of Python or Zope) to be bastardized with proprietary versions, while still allowing proprietary products/extensions to be created. And yes, a thounsand times yes, I use the GPL for ideological reasons, because I really believe this will make the world a better place. But please don't let this thread become the usual licenses flame war... However I'm not blind, and Zope is an existing product which many people use with (and develop) proprietary products. That's why I said that the GPL wouldn't be realistic. I've thought about the LGPL, and doesn't see any argument against it. bye, Jerome Alet
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote:
For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity.
I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an example of something like that happening in the past?
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote:
For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity.
I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an example of something like that happening in the past?
Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-) bye, Jerome Alet
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote:
Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-)
I really can't see that Java has been bastardized by it, though.
I was told that some java programs only run under windows, that's what I called bastardization. However I don't know for sure, because I don't use Java: I use a beautiful language instead, and it's called: Python ;-) bye, Jerome Alet
Jerome Alet wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Enge wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote:
Java comes to mind, guess who is the "powerful entity" ;-)
I really can't see that Java has been bastardized by it, though.
I was told that some java programs only run under windows, that's what I called bastardization.
However I don't know for sure, because I don't use Java: I use a beautiful language instead, and it's called: Python ;-)
There sure are python programs that run only under windows too ;) Not that I'd recommend writing them in such a way but it happens, especially if they are developed/debugged under windows only and/or use windows-specific extensions. Banning such extensions also seems stupid, as one of main strengths of python is its extensibility. And the fact that you can't use some stackless python features reasonably under plain c-python does not bother me at all. It would not bother me even if people at Transmeta would make proprietary Crusoe JIT to interpret python bytecodes directly ;) I would say that it would make me very glad instead, even if it causes some python programs make "wrong" assumptions and thus run prohibitively slow even on 1.4 GHz Athlons . -------------- Hannu
On 26 Jun 2001 09:46:09 +0200, Erik Enge wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jerome Alet wrote:
For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity.
I can't see this happening to that entitys success. Could you give me an example of something like that happening in the past?
Microsoft's proprietary version of Kerberos. Kerberos was licensed under a BSD-style license. Michael Bernstein.
"JA" == Jerome Alet <alet@unice.fr> writes:
JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some JA> powerful entity. I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python will never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the standard Python distribution. Both of those states of affair are by conscious decision: regardless of what you think of the GPL (and I personally happen to believe it can be a good license for /some/ software, but not all) GPL'ing Python would be a very bad thing. Guido has always intended for people to do whatever they want with Python, including using it in everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ software to completely free software. That's been a key to Python's success, IMO. I don't think anybody's really concerned that forking and bastardizing is a real threat. Heck, if you include Jython/JPython, .NET Python, Vyper, and Stackless there are already forks of Python out in the world getting real use. (C)Python's success hasn't suffered one bit, in fact, it's probably /benefitted/ from them. Cheers, -Barry
On 26 Jun 2001 10:30:06 -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
"JA" == Jerome Alet <alet@unice.fr> writes:
JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some JA> powerful entity.
I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python will never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the standard Python distribution. Both of those states of affair are by conscious decision: regardless of what you think of the GPL (and I personally happen to believe it can be a good license for /some/ software, but not all) GPL'ing Python would be a very bad thing. Guido has always intended for people to do whatever they want with Python, including using it in everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ software to completely free software.
I guess I don't understand how licensing Python under the GPL would prevent people from writing proprietary software in Python. Compiling a program using gcc doesn't require that the program be GPL'd. Michael Bernstein.
"MRB" == Michael R Bernstein <Michael> writes:
MRB> On 26 Jun 2001 10:30:06 -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: >> >>>>> "JA" == Jerome Alet <alet@unice.fr> writes: >> JA> For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all JA> what people usually call "open source" languages, the license JA> of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order JA> for the language in question to not become bastardized by some JA> powerful entity. >> I think I'm accurately channeling Guido when I say that Python >> will never be GPL'd. AFAIK, there is no GPL code even in the >> standard Python distribution. Both of those states of affair >> are by conscious decision: regardless of what you think of the >> GPL (and I personally happen to believe it can be a good >> license for /some/ software, but not all) GPL'ing Python would >> be a very bad thing. Guido has always intended for people to >> do whatever they want with Python, including using it in >> everything from closed source, proprietary, big-$$$ software to >> completely free software. MRB> I guess I don't understand how licensing Python under the GPL MRB> would prevent people from writing proprietary software in MRB> Python. Here's a case in agreement with the above: There's a statistical language, "R", whose implementation is GPL'd. Recently, a research organization in Australia (who shall remain nameless) starting selling a binary package for it to do microarray analysis. So, value-added software, and the question was whether it violated the GPL. Current thinking (as well as that of the R-core team) was to state that if they wanted to profit, fine, as long as they didn't build using GPLd header files (and the core team promptly LGPL'd the headers). best, -tony -- A.J. Rossini Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of Biostatistics U. of Washington Biostatistics rossini@u.washington.edu FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net rossini@scharp.org -------- (wednesday/friday is unknown) -------- FHCRC: M-Tu : 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty sketchy/use Email UW: Th : 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX
Jerome Alet wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Jerome Alet wrote I personnally would love to see both Python and Zope be GPLed.
Why? No really. Exactly what do you gain from this? Assuming Zope's license becomes GPL compatible, any packages you release you can choose to GPL. Why do you think having the GPL is a good thing for the core package? Ideological reasons? How does releasing under the GPL make the world a better place?
Hopefully Zope will soon be considered a "universally available system library" and this will not matter any more ;)
For Zope it's not sure, but for Python, as well as for all what people usually call "open source" languages, the license of choice should be the GPL, or at least the LGPL, in order for the language in question to not become bastardized by some powerful entity.
I see GPL as a good license for GCC and other _compiled_ languages, but for an interpreted language GPL or even LGPL could well be viewed as forcing _anything_ written in it to be forced under *GPL. Even more ridiculous would be the situation where pure python modules can be proprietary but modules written in C must be *GPL (think picle vs cPicle)
The problem with plain GPL, as mentionned in my previous message, is that this would make a lot of people run away. However the LGPL seems to be a very good choice, because this wouldn't allow the core (of Python or Zope) to be bastardized with proprietary versions, while still allowing proprietary products/extensions to be created.
AFAIK the ability to be "bastardized" is one of main strengths of python. It would be extremely hard to bastardise the main python (as it requires you to brainwash Guido), but having proprietary (or open-source) versions that behave in some ways differently, like ZODB-python that has transactional persistency seems to be a feature and not a bug of Python license.
And yes, a thounsand times yes, I use the GPL for ideological reasons, because I really believe this will make the world a better place.
"Think global, act local" may be a good slogan for software revolutionaries as well ;)
I've thought about the LGPL, and doesn't see any argument against it.
I just can't see what LGPL would mean for _whole_ works vs. libraries (or lessers as they are called nowadays ;) --------------- Hannu
participants (7)
-
Anthony Baxter -
barry＠digicool.com -
Erik Enge -
Hannu Krosing -
Jerome Alet -
Michael R. Bernstein -
rossini＠blindglobe.net