python obfuscate

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Mark H Harris <harrismh777 at gmail.com> wrote:
>    This is the age of open source in computer science.
>
>    It is far better to develop a strategy and culture of openness. Everyone
> benefits; especially your customers. I recommend the GPLv3 license.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the ideal of open source, I don't
like the GPL (any version), because of the annoying restrictions that
end up running through projects. All sorts of projects can't go GPL,
ergo can't use readline. Why? Because readline went for a policy of
"force it to be GPL or nothing". Thank you so much, now I have to faff
around with PostgreSQL to get decent editing keys (and the legality of
that is apparently dubious, but IANAL and it's not my problem anyway).
Postgres is open source, but not GPL, and it's linked to some other
library (I disremember which) that's under a license incompatible with
the GPL.

For my code, I use the MIT license. Do what you like, only don't sue
me. Okay, that's not something everyone will want to use, but it does
make things easier on anyone who wants to distribute it. You want to
release a third-party build of my program? Or even just package up my
code into an installer? No problem; you aren't responsible to host the
code. With GPL software, you *are*, as I found out when I tried to
make a simple GTK updater; I'm legally required to make it clear that
the source code is available from the same web site as the binaries
are (even though I didn't build it, all I did was download the
binaries from their site and download the corresponding source
archives), and I'm also obliged from the perspective of practicality
to make it clear that the source code is not necessary, lest my users
be thoroughly confused. Completely unnecessary hassle; it's red tape
applied to those who're keeping everything open, in order to have a
weapon to wield against those who close things up.

I'm aware that the GPL has its place. I'm fully aware that GPL
violations, being pursued legally, help to ensure openness; and the
borderline cases of "we could go proprietary or we could go open
source" are sometimes tipped in favour of open source by an argument
of "we could use this if we go open"; but for most people, please,
pick a simpler license that puts less restrictions on usage.

ChrisA