Why so few Python jobs? (and licenses)

[Alex Martelli]

"Cliff Wells" <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1002586507.19057.python-list at python.org...
> On Monday 08 October 2001 14:39, Alan Miller wrote:
>
> > significant time internally plus a few hundred dollars in licensing fees
> > are we much better off than if we'd gone out and bought a commercial
> > library for $200?  If nothing else the company is large enough that
> > purchasing off-the-shelf libraries is pretty simple, while negotiating
> > licenses is less so.
>
> The downside of purchasing a commercial library is that you usually don't
get
> the source code - just object files you can link against.  Now imagine

I thought sources came with most commercial libraries -- since you may
need to recompile them with so many different options (MS VC++ is very
unforgiving about linking object codes compiled with different runtime
libraries, etc, etc).  I'm pretty sure we have source for all the
commercial libraries we use, with the possible exception of Intel's
(I'm not sure if Intel's high performance numerics libraries do all
come with source) -- Microsoft's MFC and ATL, Stingray and Rogue
Wave libs, and so on.

Non-commercial open-source libraries with non-restrictive licenses (a
la BSD, X, or Python) are of course another class of alternatives yet.


Alex