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.blogspot.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
overrepresenting 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.blogspot.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.blogspot.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.blogspot.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.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
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

[Kent Johnson]

be************@lycos.com wrote:

Aww, but I liked the idea of copying Perl 6 REs, and porting python to
the toy CPU :-)

I think if PSF is going to support porting of Python to "toy" CPUs then
the Digi-Comp should be the first target. This will breathe new life
into these toys which for years have been relegated to the backs of
closets and dusty attics. Having a modern programming language available
will bring them out of the dark ages of counters and logic tables and
make them useful for such purposes as web servers and biological
research. And for the developers or others who need to target this
platform, it is again in production.
http://paperforest.blogspot.com/2006...gi-comp-1.html

Kent

[garylinux]

Look at the date.
Worry about this if it is still around tomarrow

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> 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

Good one Steve.

I particularly liked the Comments section.

:)

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I represent a
at sardine!!
visi.com

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-04-01, Piet van Oostrum <pi**@cs.uu.nl> wrote:

>> "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).

I just found last night that my spankin' new Thinkpad came with
Python 2.2 pre-installed underneath an "IBMTOOLS" directory on
the C: drive.

Don't let Lenovo slide by without paying...

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'll take ROAST BEEF
at if you're out of LAMB!!
visi.com

[Roy Smith]

In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> 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

Absolutely agree. This is a disaster. Specifying the use of $US will shut
out our friends who use quatloos or gold pressed latinum for currency. Bad
idea.

[reedobrien]

That isn't in the published 2.5 License.

http://docs.python.org/dev/ref/node110.html

Thanks for the scare..

~r

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Fuzzyman wrote:
<cut>

From the site:
"Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First Object-Oriented
License"

string = "Advanced Program for Research In Licensing, whose First
Object-Oriented License"
for letter in string:
if ord(letter) in range(65,91):
print(letter),

--
mph

[EP]

>

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

If I could read past the first paragraph do you think I would really
hang onto this newsgroup asking stupid questions?!

The personal harm caused readers of this announcement should entitle
each reader to a free beer (or for those with bad hearts, a
nitroglycerin pill) at the expense of the perpetrator - though I imagine
the PSF team of lawyers retained for license enforcement may take up the
case on his side - money talks.
- As an aside, I should mention that I have countered the announced
licensing change with a patent application for the use of 3, 4, or 5
spaces as an indent for purposes of establishing a code block. I have
written a tidy little program that will count indent spaces in all
Python programs and expect to negotiate royalty settlements on a per
space basis ($.0001 per space proposed). Anyone who prefers to avoid a
call from my legal team can simply send me their source code for royalty
calculation, and provide a credit card or bank account number. Thanks.

EP

[walterbyrd]

Is this an April fool's joke?

Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <wa********@iname.com> wrote:

Is this an April fool's joke?

Did you read the blog entry?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I will invent "TIDY
at BOWL"...
visi.com

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Grant Edwards a écrit :

On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> 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

Good one Steve.

I particularly liked the Comments section.

:)

+42

And this pretty intersting link:
http://www2.sqlonrails.org/

[Steve Holden]

Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2006-04-01, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> 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

Good one Steve.

I particularly liked the Comments section.

:)

Yes, lots of people joined in the spirit of the original post - the
comments were added by others. Thanks for pointing them out: I hadn't
noticed, having been out all day at a Make Beer Free rally.

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

[Steve Holden]

Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <wa********@iname.com> wrote:

Is this an April fool's joke?

Did you read the blog entry?

I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove
the blog entry just so's nobobdy's tempted to take it seriously.

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

[Ray]

Steve Holden wrote:

Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2006-04-01, walterbyrd <wa********@iname.com> wrote:

Is this an April fool's joke?

Did you read the blog entry?

I suspect he didn't. I'm guessing that eventually we'll have to remove
the blog entry just so's nobobdy's tempted to take it seriously.

If a big corporation wants to take it seriously and pay 1.25, what's
wrong with that? :)

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

[Fredrik Lundh]

"walterbyrd" wrote:

Please post a link to the original article. Not just a post to a blog.

the pyfound blog is the official PSF blog; it's linked from the PSF:s
homepage:

http://www.python.org/psf/

</F>

[Tim Roberts]

Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> 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.

The subject of this post really scared me. I was one of the driver
developers for XFree86. They really DID change their license in XFree86
4.4, and within about 6 months, XFree86 was effectively dead and X.Org had
taken over the world, with the same code base but a more traditional
license.

I held my breath until I read the actual document...
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

[Philippe Martin]

That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-)

Regards,
Philippe
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]

Philippe Martin wrote:

That was nasty Steve - at least I'm ready for any kind of bad new today ;-)

Sorry ;-)

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