My only complaint about Python

[Tim Daneliuk]

Christophe Cavalaria wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> 
> 
>>510046470588-0001 at t-online.de wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Istvan Albert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In all fairness this is more the problem with Microsoft than
>>>>>python. If they had a free fully-featured compiler then Python
>>>>>would be compiled with that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They do.  MSC/C++ is now available at NO cost:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>no cost is not the same as free
>>>
>>>Klaus Schilling
>>
>><Goes Off The Reservation For A Moment>
>>
>>"No Cost" is _exactly_ the same thing as "Free". It is not the same
>>thing as "Open Source".
>>
>>The debate is foolish in any case. If I use an GPLed compiler, even with
>>the Lesser License, I have constraints placed upon what I may or may
>>not do with the derivative work. If I use a commercial compiler, I do
>>not have access to the source code _for the compiler_, but (usually)
>>there are no constraints placed upon what I may do with the derivative
>>work.
> 
> 
> This is wrong on so many levels :
> - gcc is GPL software and you don't have to GPL the source code of the
> programs you compile with it. Doing so would place a restriction on the
> user of the software which is exactly what the GPL is trying to prevent.
> Using gcc to compile source code isn't creating a derivative work of gcc !
> - if you modify the gcc source code and thus create a derivative work, you
> don't have to distribute the changes, unless you distribute the new gcc
> version.
> - with a commercial closed source compiler, you can't do any derivative of
> the compiler at all and thus you have less freedom than with a GPL
> compiler.
> 
> If you can't see the difference between using a software and creating a
> derivative work of that software ...

It is "derivative" in the sense that the final binary may either contain
and/or depend upon library support shipped with the gcc compiler chain.
IIRC (and this may have changed - I have not looked at it in some time),
even the Lesser GPL places some constraints about what you _must_ distribute
(or be willing to provide) when you use their libs to produce a shipped product.
Moreover, for a long time (and this too may have changed), the corporate
lawyers I had checking the GPL did not like it because it was (legally)
muddy.

The only sense in which you have "less freedom" with a commercial product
is that you cannot build works that derive directly from the compiler/library
source code.  So what?   In most real world commercial applications, this is
a non-issue.  Note that I was clear that I use _both_ OSS and Commercial products.
My rant is directed at people who thing Proprietary=Evil and OSS=Good which is
a nonsensical position.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk     tundra at tundraware.com
PGP Key:         http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/