Python package to accept payments in Internet

[Victor Porton]

Chris Warrick wrote:

> On 3 May 2017 at 17:19, Victor Porton <porton at narod.ru> wrote:
>> What do you mean by "banned"? Does this mean that Google does not use
>> software of this license?
> 
> https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/

It is irrelevant for me that Google Code bans my license (by the way it 
seems that Google banned it only in the past, not now). I anyway host it at 
GitHub not at Google Code.

>> My package is a professional tool unlike other's hacks.
> 
> You yourself called your code a hack:
> 
>>> Also, this line looks unconvincing:
>>>
>>> # This is a quick hack. For serious work use
>>> https://github.com/paypal/PayPal-Python-SDK instead.

Here I use the word "hack" to mean "something that works but isn't a full 
featured solution". This hack in my software applies to a very small 
fragment of my code not to entire code.

That this small fragment is a hack does not influence the external behavior 
of the software. Thus it does not matter for users of my software.

>> This quick hack does work for the purpose it was made. This class is
>> not feature-rich, but other features are not needed by other parts of
>> my software. So it's OK.
> 
> No, it’s not okay. Quick hacks are never good when dealing with money.

I made this hack with only one purpose, to avoid dependency on 
https://github.com/paypal/PayPal-Python-SDK.

Thus this "hack" eases installation of my software: the user needs to 
install only one package rather than two. Also it makes my software to load 
quicker. So this hack is a benefit for the user not a deficiency.

And nothing prevents the user to use PayPal-Python-SDK with or instead of 
this my quick hack.

You carp with words, finding a problem where there is no real problem, just 
words (I mean the word "hack") which sound like a problem.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org