wxPython Licence vs GPL

[Paul Boddie]

Ed Jensen wrote:

[On closed source derivatives of Python]

> I'm aware of this concern.  I don't think it's justified.  Unless
> you'd like to point out all those closed, proprietary Python
> implementations that are destroying civilization as we know it.

Well, there was some concern voiced at EuroPython that a certain large
software-patent-lobbying organisation wouldn't release the shiny port
of Python that they'd done for their mobile telephone products. Now,
one can either emulate that well-practised foot-stamping routine of
yours...

> Wah, wah, I gave this software away for free, and people are actually
> using it without giving anything back!  Wah, wah!

...or one can question the suitability or otherwise of the Python
licence. Since licences define the type of sharing and community around
a project, one has to be careful in choosing a licence in order to get
the kind of sharing and community that one wants.

In another recent licensing spat, some people are apparently unhappy
with one Python-related project's use of the GPL, since the code they
originally contributed to an older, related project ends up being
redistributed under the GPL in the former project whereas the latter
project cannot redistribute the former project's original code without
putting a GPL licence on the distributed work. Now, if the latter
project, with its advantage of having come into existence first had
chosen a GPL-incompatible licence, it's quite possible that they would
have avoided the situation that some seem to bemoan, but then one has
to consider the likelihood that people actually do want GPL
compatibility in their favourite open source projects.

My point about the freeloading was that business understandably likes
to do it. I don't feel any sympathy for participants in various Apache
projects that are hugely popular in business, for example, if those
participants dislike the lack of contributions from those companies
using their software to make money, because those who founded those
projects made a conscious licensing decision and that decision defines
the kind of sharing (or otherwise) around such projects.

> I never said anything was being "pushed on" me.  I never said anything
> was being "imposed on" me.  I said an agenda was being pushed.
> Stallman and company have an agenda, and the GPL is their instrument
> of choice for pushing that agenda.

So if you're not personally affected, as you claim, why does it bother
you?

Paul