[ANN]PyCrash 0.2 released

[Peter Hansen]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
> > In any case, I recommend the MIT license (on that page) as the simplest
> > way to "contribute to the python community" if you have no particular
> > desire to constrain the use of your code in any way (including, for example,
> > requiring things like "proper credit be given in the documentation" etc).
> 
> Well, public domain is simpler, 

That's arguable.  I've certainly seen more discussion here and elsewhere
about the concept of "public domain" and whether or not it even exists
in some places that I'd argue that the MIT license *is* simpler, but 
the discussion won't benefit anyone right now. :-)

> but "simplest" doesn't necessarily mean "best".  

True.  It's the OP's choice, but he seemed to be looking along the lines
of "simplest", IMHO.

> The GPL aims to make sure that everyone receives all the
> benefits of any improvements that anyone makes, and also to guarantee
> that end users have the freedom to study and modify the code that they
> run.  The MIT license (etc.) is of somewhat more benefit to product
> vendors, since it lets them freely use your code in proprietary
> products without having to pass that freedom on to their users.  I.e.
> you get to be an unpaid developer for someone else's proprietary product.

Yeah, whatever.  I see MIT as a simple way to say "here you go, I'm
clearly not restricting what you do with this".  If you want to get
into *enforcing* the freedom of your code, then you can certainly look
at GPL, but some people aren't into that kind of thing and don't mind
if someone finds a way to profit from their work in some small way. 
Some people would even feel proud if that happened...

-Peter