ANN: pyfromc - Python from C++ and vice versa

[Terry Reedy]

"Gerson Kurz" <gerson.kurz at t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3fa3c4e1.43930000 at news.t-online.de...
> I find "licensing" example code, at best, ridiculous. And that's
> basically all it is: it is an example, a starting point - it
contains
> only one method "test". Please. It took some work to figure out how
to
> exactly put the pieces together - but now that it works its almost
> trivial. Licensing example code is anal-retentive, over-protective
and
> paranoid. There are way too many licenses attached to way too much
> unlicenseworthy stuff, just for the sake of license fetishism,

I agree with you that the legal stuff is pretty nasty.  But you
perhaps underestimate the protective aspect of minimal o.s. licenses.
Your statement "Use at own risk." *is* a license term.  It is, in
summary, the second of two conditions in the MIT license pointed to by
Peter:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
(The first, to acknowledge authorship, really is hardly applicable to
an example that would have to be reworked).

> Back in the 80s, when I started programming on the Atari & Amiga,
> before the GPL became any public issue, we had three kinds of
licenses
> : None, Public Domain and Other.

Public Domain is *not* a license, but a disclaimer of license with
unilateral permission to use.  Such donations, being *unconditional*,
allow false claims of authorship and do nothing to prevent
'anti-good-Samaritan' lawsuits.  Software authors, in the U.S. at
least, increasingly feel the need for 'good-Samaritan' no-sue clauses
for the same reason doctors want 'good-Samaritan' no-sue laws.

The current Caldera-Sco Unix v. Linux lawsuits and $$$ demands
suggests that programmer paranoia was not so paranoid afterall.

Terry J. Reedy