SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Re: Re: Basic CVS Usage
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Re: Re: Basic CVS Usage
- From: Ben Leslie <benno@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri Sep 15 11:39:24 2000
- Organization: SES Group
- Reply-to: benno@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Angus Lees wrote:
> which is going to be so very useful, when the next python license
> turns out to be incompatible with the GPL.. (see license for python
> 1.6) [insert anti- python / commercially sponsored competitions
> bigotry here]
Not to start an off-topic flame war, but what specifically is wrong with
license begin incompatible with the GPL? THere are many free licenses whic
turn out to be incompatible with the GPL.
You will find that the following licenses, although being "free", are also
incompatabile with the GPL:
The license of Apache
The LaTeX project public license
The Mozilla Public License
PHP4 License. (php3 was available under php3)
It would seem that the Python group has been trying to make their license
"7.Is it compatible with the GNU Public License (GPL)?
Legal counsel for both CNRI and BeOpen.com believe that it is fully compatible
with the GPL. However, the Free Software Foundation attorney and Richard
Stallman believe there may be one incompatibility, i.e., the CNRI License
specifies a legal venue to interpret its License while the GPL is silent on
the issue of jurisdiction. Resolution of this issue is being pursued. "
I can't seem to find a reference for the other side of the story, but I would
be glad to see one.
The python license is free, despite what appears to be a very minor,
incompatibility problem with the GPL.
If you don't want to use python due to the licensing issues then you should
probably reconsider using apache, latex, mozilla and php4. If you don't want to
use python for other reasons though, go right ahead.
*puts on flame resistant suit*