examples of realistic multiprocessing usage?

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <mailman.859.1295270976.6505.python-list at python.org>,
Adam Tauno Williams  <awilliam at whitemice.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:55 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <mailman.842.1295212943.6505.python-list at python.org>,
>> Philip Semanchuk  <philip at semanchuk.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> >I grepped through the code to see that it's using =
>> >multiprocessing.Listener. I didn't go any further than that because our =
>> >project is BSD licensed and the license for Gluino is unclear. Until I =
>> >find out whether or not its under an equally permissive license, I can't =
>> >borrow ideas and/or code from it.
>> You have been brain washed by the Intellectual Properties congsy.
>> Of course you can read through code to borrow idea's from it.
>
>I wouldn't; and there is no brain-washing.
>
>It is very unwise to look at GPL'd code if you are working on a non-GPL
>project; the GPL is specifically and intentionally viral.  The
>distinction between reading-through-code-and-borrowing-ideas and
>copying-code is thin and best left to lawyers.

This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.
GPL-ers are not keen on getting the most monetary award by
setting lawyers on you and go to court only reluctantly to
enforce the license.

>
>Aside: Comments to the contrary often stand-on-their-head to make such
>cases.  For example:
>
>"You do have a choice under the GPL license: you can stop using the
>stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release
>under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say, I choose neither,
>then the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further
>distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. ...
>Of course, you could avoid all such troubles in the first place by not
>stealing GPL code to begin with"
><http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851>

Stealing code means just that, verbatim copies. When you read this
carefully, you can see that reimplementing the stolen code is
an option. Exactly what you say is legally impossible.

It doesn't say:
   "you can stop using the stolen code, and now you're forever
   banned from writing your own, since you have seen our code"

>
>Seriously?  What that basically means is you can't use GPL'd code in a
>non-GPL'd product/project. Saying if you do it is OK, but you'll be
>required to replace the code or change your license is
>standing-on-ones-head.  Risking a forced reimplementation of a core
>component of an existing application is 'just nuts'.

GPL-code is protected under *copyright law*, not patents or some
such. That means that reimplementing idea's is okay.
That is one of the things  GPL tries to protect.
Also we recognize the fact that the wheel is reinvented all the time
and that there are a limited number of solutions to a problem.
You could easily have come up with the same idea as me.

Then you overlook another possibility. I have a lot of GPL-ed code
on my site. If you want to use some of it commercially, you
could contact me and negotiate a non-GPL license. You might be
surprised how easy I'm on you, as long as you recognize where
the code comes from. If you want to use it BSD-licensed, I
would be even more lenient (unless strategic issues are at
stake.)

So pardon me, but not even looking at code you might learn from
is pretty hysteric.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert at spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst