Python 2.5 licensing: stop this change

[Steve Holden]

As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in

http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/...ng-change.html

I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think
it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive,
reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from
contributing to the code base.

If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do
something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of
Python as we know it.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogs pot.com

[ajones]

I say good riddence. Python's success has always been on its merits as
an open source application platform. Corprate usage has always been
relatively insignificant, and I suspect that many companies are
overrepresentin g the level of dependance they have on python in an
attempt to steer their competitors into just this kind of open source
license trap.

I am all for this change. It is about time that free as in beer became
a double entendre for python.

[Kay Schluehr]

Steve Holden wrote:

As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in

http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/...ng-change.html

I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think
it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive,
reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from
contributing to the code base.

If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do
something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of
Python as we know it.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogs pot.com

I'm +1 on the new license because I want to spend good money for good
products.

My own take is more close to Xah Lees: lets be ultimately responsible
and found an insurance for all kind of damages related to Python script
usages. Part of the money the PSF earns for insurance fees could be
donated to a charitable foundation that cares for indian children that
suffer from snake bites.

[Fuzzyman]

Steve Holden wrote:

As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in

http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/...ng-change.html

I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think
it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive,
reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from
contributing to the code base.

If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do
something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of
Python as we know it.

Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use
of a derivative work based on the Python source code ?

Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard
CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered.
Right ?

Does this cover commercial applications that embed the Python
interpreter ? (Looks like it will)

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogs pot.com

[Fuzzyman]

Fuzzyman wrote:

Steve Holden wrote:

As the only director of the Python Software Foundation to vote against a
recent Board motion to implement the change in licensing terms described in

http://pyfound.blogspot.com/2006/04/...ng-change.html

I would like to place on record my protest against this change. I think
it will harm the Python language and ultimately be counter-productive,
reducing the user base and discouraging open source programmers from
contributing to the code base.

If you disagree with this proposed change it's not too late to do
something about it. If this change goes ahead it will be the end of
Python as we know it.

Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use
of a derivative work based on the Python source code ?

Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard
CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered.
Right ?

Does this cover commercial applications that embed the Python
interpreter ? (Looks like it will)

Hmmm... after due consideration (and reading the announcmement
properly), I support this license change in full.

Nice one Steve.

Fuzzy
All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogs pot.com

[Caleb Hattingh]

Steve

I agree with you. If my vote means anything, I vote against it.

The Board realises that this change will be
contentious. There are many advantages
to making it, however, which we feel will
benefit the Python community at large
and the PSF membership in particular.
Users who wish to make commercial
use of Python on a royalty-free basis
are encouraged to continue using Python 2.4,
whose licensing conditions remain the same.

I guess what would happen is that many people will sit on 2.4 for a lot
longer than expected, or widespread interest in other implementations
(fork?) suddenly take off ;)

I would pretty much have to remain with 2.4 at work - we have a
draconian IT software management policy that would prevent me getting
approval for a commercial licence for python for at least the better
part of a year, and this cycle would be repeated for every upgrade (the
hold-ups involve budgets, cost-centres and red tape). This is why I
use as much free software as possible.

Regards
Caleb

[Caleb Hattingh]

WAIT-

Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke?

I have a nasty feeling about this :))

C

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> "Fuzzyman" <fu******@gmail .com> (F) wrote:

F> Can I ask for clarification. The charge applies to any commercial use
F> of a derivative work based on the Python source code ? F> Normal applications that use Python, including bunding the standard
F> CPython as an executable, using tools like py2exe, won't be covered.
F> Right ?

As I understand it, distributing Python is also covered. For a commercial
vendor $1.25 is peanuts, but for the PSA it is a significant amount (think
about all the Mac OSX copies if Apple decides to switch to 2.5).
--
Piet van Oostrum <pi**@cs.uu.n l>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C 4]
Private email: pi**@vanoostrum .org

[Ivan Herman]

I would certainly look at *all details* of the announcement, including
the second line from the top which gives the date:-)

Ivan
Caleb Hattingh wrote:

WAIT-

Did I just get caught by an April Fools Joke?

I have a nasty feeling about this :))

C

[bearophileHUGS]

Ivan Herman>I would certainly look at *all details* of the
announcement,<

Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to
the toy CPU :-)
(But making strings mutable sounds too much strange).

Bye and thank you,
bearophile