Python is slow?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:19:57 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:04:41 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > You're not free to modify gnuplot and redistribute the result.
>> > 
>> > That you're free to distribute patches is nice, but it's not enough
>> > to make the work free. The freedom to help people by giving them an
>> > *already-modified* gnuplot is restricted by the copyright holder.
>> > 
>> > It's an artificial restriction on redistribution of derived works,
>> > making them second-class for the prupose of getting them into
>> > people's hands.
>> 
>> Yes it is. It seems a strange, unnecessary restriction. But is it
>> sufficient to make it non-free? I don't think so.
> 
> I do, because a natural, beneficial act (modify the work and
> redistribute it) that has no technical reason to restrict, is
> artifically restricted.

We agree that the restriction is artificial, and I think irrational 
(although I'd be interested in hearing the gnuplot developers' reasoning 
before making a final judgment). 

But I just don't see the requirement that modified software be 
distributed in form X (original source + diffs) versus form Y (modified 
source in a tar ball) or form Z (an rpm) to be that big a deal. Not 
enough to make it "non-free software".

I simply don't think that having to run some variation on

patch -i patchfile.patch

is a requirement so onerous that it makes the gnuplot licence non-free. 
Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of eccentricities than you :)


-- 
Steven