From es at ethanschoonover.com Tue May 4 00:36:09 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:36:09 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles Message-ID: Summary ============================================================ As part of my contribution to this stage of the Python.org project I've volunteered to start compiling use cases. Before I can do this, I need to compile *user-profiles*. In other words *who* comes to Python.org (or who *should* come, even if they aren't now) and *why* do they visit. Mailing List Brainstorming ============================================================ There are a lot of ways to put together lists like this. Market research, competitive review, internal brainstorming, etc. This is a call for *internal brainstorming*. **There are no wrong ideas in a brainstorming session.** I'd rather not debate specific user profiles in this thread. What I want is the broadest possible collection of ideas that I can then add to my own lists and collect into a cohesive draft of base profiles. Examples ============================================================ Here are a couple examples that might kick start your own ideas/descriptions: Pythonista under Pointed Haired Boss ------------------------------------------------------------ Already committed Python coder needs to convince senior IT or upper management why Python makes sense for their organization. Looking for information on Python.org that can help make her case. Uncommitted Researcher ------------------------------------------------------------ User looking to pick amongst the current crop of Python peer level languages. May have a specific or general need. Wants to compare LanguageX to Python or may simply be looking for that final confirmation that Python is the best option for their needs. Greybeard Switcher ------------------------------------------------------------ Expert programmers switching to Python (reasons for switching?)... wants a high level, just the facts ma'am summary so that he/she can make own decision or jump start learning. Coerced Coed ------------------------------------------------------------ Students that are required to learn Python as part of a course. Looking for...? What I'd like you to do ============================================================ If you want to contribute, please reply to this thread with a user profile (and brief description if you want). Short and sweet is fine. Duplicates are fine. Variations on a theme or on another person's idea are fine. What I'll do with this information ============================================================ I'll be working to identify common aspects to the user descriptions (experience, commitment, relationship to Python community, needs, etc.). This will become part of the draft report as detailed in Richard's existing plan. -Ethan Ethan Schoonover es at ethanschoonover.com +1-206-569-5463 http://ethanschoonover.com From martin at v.loewis.de Tue May 4 00:52:51 2010 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 00:52:51 +0200 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BDF53C3.8010905@v.loewis.de> Here is who I think are the users of python.org (not restricted to www.python.org) Python Windows User ------------------- Wants to download the Python MSI file, in order to install it on her workstation or laptop. Python Developer Reading Documentation -------------------------------------- Developer needs to find out how some API works. Python Developer Reporting a Bug -------------------------------- Goes to bugs.python.org, fills out form; later follows-up. Python Developer Releasing a Package ------------------------------------ Goes to pypi.python.org, and uploads file. 50% chance that no webbrowser is involved (I could find out more correct statistics if desired). Python Developer Looking for Some Package ----------------------------------------- Browses list of PyPI hits, obtained from Google or local search, then downloads respective module. Python Developer Installing Some Known Package ---------------------------------------------- Often not through a web browser, but through easy_install, pip, zc.buildout, and so on. Python Core Contributor ----------------------- Not sure whether I should list their tasks in separate profiles; I think many of them: - use the version control system (svn/hg) - use the bug tracker - look at the buildbot results Some also: - have their build slave connect to the buildbot master - upload releases and/or documentation Mailing List Member ------------------- Subscribe to some MailMan list, and then send and receive postings to the list. Get reminded of list membership on Happy MailMan Day. Job Hunter ---------- Reads job postings Head Hunter ----------- Submits job postings. Website Contributor ------------------- Again, there are several channels on which people contribute, including - sending their blog feeds for integration into the planet - posting stuff to the wiki - proposing error corrections on the web pages, primarily for the Python documentation. HTH, Martin From mfoord at python.org Tue May 4 00:56:21 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 23:56:21 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <4BDF53C3.8010905@v.loewis.de> References: <4BDF53C3.8010905@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: <4BDF5495.6030808@python.org> On 03/05/2010 23:52, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > [snip...] > Python Developer Looking for Some Package > ----------------------------------------- > > Browses list of PyPI hits, obtained from Google > or local search, then downloads respective module. > > More and more it seems like developers are putting their documentation on PyPI (either through the documentation hosting system or on the PyPI page itself). I've often found myself on PyPI reading *about* a package. Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From es at ethanschoonover.com Tue May 4 00:59:47 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:59:47 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <4BDF53C3.8010905@v.loewis.de> References: <4BDF53C3.8010905@v.loewis.de> Message-ID: On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 15:52, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > Here is who I think are the users of python.org > (not restricted to www.python.org) That's a good point and worth reiterating: many of the user groups that we want to target may not be visiting Python.org yet (or may only make use of a subset of it): - Users that hang out in Python sub-communities, such as on http://www.reddit.com/r/python - Users of programming specific sites such as http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/python - Developers jumping straight to PyPI via Google results So as Martin and Michael just did, it's great to mention these users in their current context as well. From aahz at pythoncraft.com Tue May 4 02:52:02 2010 From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 17:52:02 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> On Mon, May 03, 2010, Ethan Schoonover wrote: > > If you want to contribute, please reply to this thread with a user > profile (and brief description if you want). Short and sweet is fine. > Duplicates are fine. Variations on a theme or on another person's idea > are fine. Pointy-haired boss looking for info (as opposed to previously-mentioned subordinate) Journalist researching Python (either in its own right or as part of e.g. the SEC story) New Pythonista looking for others * Mailing lists * User groups * Conferences Trying to run an application written in Python but not interested in Python itself * Needing a specific version to get package running -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan From es at ethanschoonover.com Tue May 4 03:54:03 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 18:54:03 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> Message-ID: On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 17:52, Aahz wrote: > Trying to run an application written in Python but not interested in > Python itself That's a great entry point to Python exposure I hadn't thought of and which I have to imagine can have a huge impact on initial pos/neg experience with Python. First impressions, etc. Keep 'em coming... From aahz at pythoncraft.com Tue May 4 06:52:59 2010 From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 21:52:59 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> Message-ID: <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> On Mon, May 03, 2010, Ethan Schoonover wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 17:52, Aahz wrote: >> >> Trying to run an application written in Python but not interested in >> Python itself > > That's a great entry point to Python exposure I hadn't thought of and > which I have to imagine can have a huge impact on initial pos/neg > experience with Python. First impressions, etc. Related: user trying to learn Python as a macro/embedded language (e.g. for vim or Paint Shop Pro). -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." --Bill Harlan From steve at holdenweb.com Tue May 4 12:49:51 2010 From: steve at holdenweb.com (Steve Holden) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 06:49:51 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> Message-ID: <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> Aahz wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2010, Ethan Schoonover wrote: >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 17:52, Aahz wrote: >>> Trying to run an application written in Python but not interested in >>> Python itself >> That's a great entry point to Python exposure I hadn't thought of and >> which I have to imagine can have a huge impact on initial pos/neg >> experience with Python. First impressions, etc. > > Related: user trying to learn Python as a macro/embedded language (e.g. > for vim or Paint Shop Pro). Which reminds me: there are whole classes of users who come to Python because it's the embedded scripting language in their application. Everything from SPSS through Blender and Maya to ARC geo now use Python as their scripting language of choice. These people surely need help too (and maybe the commercial vendors would like to help?) Not to mention the many users who learn Python to use Django to develop web sites. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See PyCon Talks from Atlanta 2010 http://pycon.blip.tv/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ From mfoord at python.org Tue May 4 12:52:06 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 11:52:06 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> Message-ID: <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> On 04/05/2010 11:49, Steve Holden wrote: > Aahz wrote: > >> On Mon, May 03, 2010, Ethan Schoonover wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 17:52, Aahz wrote: >>> >>>> Trying to run an application written in Python but not interested in >>>> Python itself >>>> >>> That's a great entry point to Python exposure I hadn't thought of and >>> which I have to imagine can have a huge impact on initial pos/neg >>> experience with Python. First impressions, etc. >>> >> Related: user trying to learn Python as a macro/embedded language (e.g. >> for vim or Paint Shop Pro). >> > Which reminds me: there are whole classes of users who come to Python > because it's the embedded scripting language in their application. > Everything from SPSS through Blender and Maya to ARC geo now use Python > as their scripting language of choice. These people surely need help too > (and maybe the commercial vendors would like to help?) > > There's another interesting class of Python users - who may end up on the Python website. Java and C# developers who are using IronPython and Jython to embed in *their* applications as scripting languages. (Plus C/C++ developers who embed CPython.) All the best, Michael > Not to mention the many users who learn Python to use Django to develop > web sites. > > regards > Steve > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From techtonik at gmail.com Tue May 4 17:33:26 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:33:26 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: I would add also - plain internet folks who by a chance stumbled upon python.org website. Or not by a chance. Gamers, who want to make custom level and heard that their game engine uses Python. Game developers, who would like to start using Python (or switching from Lua) as scripting language for their engines. Users of Google API that learn Python to automate things or write robots for Google Wave. Observers that passively watch Python development. Stackless, PyPy users/developers that need to sync with core. Scientists who look at Python as FORTRAN replacement and use SciPy, .. ahem.. and many others scientific tools written in Python. C folks, who do not know that Python can speed up the development process when being the primary language for integrating modules. Also Python users, who do not know they were using Python, but got some related error message. Ubuntu users who have heard that Ubuntu promotes usage of Python. Ubuntu developers, who develop Launchpad and other Canonical services. Ubuntu/Debian/Haiku/other developers, who need to package Python apps for their users. Teachers, who look into Python for their introductory courses into Computer Science after MIT. Python users reporting bugs. Python developers trying to find their way around bugs, subscribe to important bugs, compile a list of personal bugs that would be nice to be done some day, also looking for ways to confirm/fix bugs. Developers of Python applications, who would like to monitor upstream Python bugs that cause problems with their apps. Developers/admins who look into Python to hack Trac. Developers who are trying to understand metaclasses to get the idea how Trac core works. Developers, who look for instructions how to debug Python code to understand how Trac handles requests. Developers, who look for Python IDE. People looking for information about bugs, searching web site, bug tracker, wiki, asking help in IRC, looking for searchable Google Groups archive of discussions and trolling pydotorg-www mailing list. =) Also Google search users. Also people interested in real pythons and snakes. People looking for phyton. A lot of people looking for tutorial more than documentation - http://www.python.org/webstats/usage_201005.html#TOPSEARCH - also for Guido van Rossum and PEP8. BTW, Google Wave is more suited for such kind of compilations/collaborations - it even has default Brainstorming template. -- anatoly t. From techtonik at gmail.com Tue May 4 17:48:59 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:48:59 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: One more - developers who look how to integrate services/tools used by python.org into their own workflow. For obvious reason - they are already familiar with these tools or like how they work. For example, OpenID integration for Roundup. -- anatoly t. From es at ethanschoonover.com Wed May 5 00:30:55 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:30:55 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: Just a follow up note to say thanks to everyone for the excellent feedback yesterday. If anyone has more ideas, please continue to add to this thread. I'm in the process of collating the brainstorming into a more structured review of visitor types and will have further questions this week. Best, Ethan Ethan Schoonover es at ethanschoonover.com +1-206-569-5463 http://ethanschoonover.com From techtonik at gmail.com Wed May 5 09:33:16 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:33:16 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ethan Schoonover wrote: > Just a follow up note to say thanks to everyone for the excellent > feedback yesterday. If anyone has more ideas, please continue to add > to this thread. I'm in the process of collating the brainstorming into > a more structured review of visitor types and will have further > questions this week. Seems like we've completely left out social and professional aspect. Besides developers, scientists and students, python.org is visited by - designers, government folks, consultants, home users, engineers, media folks, people from financial sphere, network administrators, lawyers, military professions, office workers. Social are gender - men and women. Age - 10 to 70 (it would be actually interesting to read an interview with the oldest Python user). Bounce ratio - how many users find site interesting. There 2 kind of site users - returning and new. Majority of new site users don't know anything about p.o site at all. However, the majority of site users are returning. Age groups can be analyzed also by view and experience. I suppose that in age group of 30 and up there are usually people with vast development experience and conservative views. In group under 30 there are people who monitor what's going on in Internet and know recent trends. Group under 23 are active Internet users who know or have accounts in about almost every modern Internet service, but do not have development experience to see how these services works. There is a strong correlation between age and amount of new things people aware of/tried. It is because more experienced developers are more busy with work, they often have children and a lot of errands to run, hence almost no time. So, 90% of Python Developers category are also "people with no time". =) -- anatoly t. From fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk Wed May 5 12:43:45 2010 From: fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk (Michael Foord) Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 11:43:45 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: broken mailing list links in PEP(s?) Message-ID: <4BE14BE1.6090200@voidspace.org.uk> Hello all, It looks like the changes to the python-dev mailman archives broke some of the links in PEPs. All the best, Michael Foord -------- Original Message -------- Subject: broken mailing list links in PEP(s?) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 20:22:57 -0700 From: Bayle Shanks To: webmaster at python.org On http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/ , in the section "Credits and archives", there are a bunch of links like http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-July/108893.html which are broken thanks, bayle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From es at ethanschoonover.com Wed May 5 18:19:33 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:19:33 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504005202.GB8667@panix.com> <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: Anatoly, thanks for the continued contribution on this. FWIW I will also be including some standard demographic/psychographic categories where they seem appropriate. When you are speaking of age, sex and other demographic breakdowns, I'm curious if there have been any actual studies of demographics on the site? Or is this more anecdotal? Not to discount anecdote... it may end up being our best internal data available (for better or worse). Also, regarding bounce rate, is this based on data or estimate? Nothing wrong with estimates as a first pass, but if there some data hiding around somewhere, I'm interested to uncover it as well. Thanks again, Ethan Ethan Schoonover es at ethanschoonover.com +1-206-569-5463 http://ethanschoonover.com On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 00:33, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ethan Schoonover wrote: >> Just a follow up note to say thanks to everyone for the excellent >> feedback yesterday. If anyone has more ideas, please continue to add >> to this thread. I'm in the process of collating the brainstorming into >> a more structured review of visitor types and will have further >> questions this week. > > Seems like we've completely left out social and professional aspect. > Besides developers, scientists and students, python.org is visited by > - designers, government folks, consultants, home users, engineers, > media folks, people from financial sphere, network administrators, > lawyers, military professions, office workers. > > Social are gender - men and women. Age - 10 to 70 (it would be > actually interesting to read an interview with the oldest Python > user). > > Bounce ratio - how many users find site interesting. There 2 kind of > site users - returning and new. Majority of new site users don't know > anything about p.o site at all. However, the majority of site users > are returning. > > Age groups can be analyzed also by view and experience. I suppose that > in age group of 30 and up there are usually people with vast > development experience and conservative views. In group under 30 > there are people who monitor what's going on in Internet and know > recent trends. Group under 23 are active Internet users who know or > have accounts in about almost every modern Internet service, but do > not have development experience to see how these services works. There > is a strong correlation between age and amount of new things people > aware of/tried. It is because more experienced developers are more > busy with work, they often have children and a lot of errands to run, > hence almost no time. So, 90% of Python Developers category are also > "people with no time". =) > -- > anatoly t. > From techtonik at gmail.com Wed May 5 22:29:36 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 23:29:36 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ethan Schoonover wrote: > When you are speaking of age, sex and other demographic breakdowns, > I'm curious if there have been any actual studies of demographics on > the site? Or is this more anecdotal? Not to discount anecdote... it > may end up being our best internal data available (for better or > worse). It is brainstorming, so these are just assumptions. I doubt it is possible to gather correct data or validate it, because most people on Internet have no reasons to be honest. I would say it is quite the opposite. In any case people like th? man who listens more rather than the one that makes their autopsy. =) I mean that processing direct feedback from users about what they dislike about Python community would be more effective than trying to guess that. But it is still fun to think about something not that technical. > Also, regarding bounce rate, is this based on data or estimate? > Nothing wrong with estimates as a first pass, but if there some data > hiding around somewhere, I'm interested to uncover it as well. We don't have Google Analytics counters, so it is more like a reason to make a bet for some beer. -- anatoly t. From techtonik at gmail.com Thu May 6 00:46:38 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 01:46:38 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: And also "users" who learn Python in advance to win second Cold War. https://software.sandia.gov/trac/pyutilib http://www.google.com/search?q=LHC+python -- anatoly t. From es at ethanschoonover.com Thu May 6 01:32:01 2010 From: es at ethanschoonover.com (Ethan Schoonover) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:32:01 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] User Profiles In-Reply-To: References: <20100504045259.GA28919@panix.com> <4BDFFBCF.6060304@holdenweb.com> <4BDFFC56.3060208@python.org> Message-ID: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 13:29, anatoly techtonik wrote: > We don't have Google Analytics counters, so it is more like a reason > to make a bet for some beer. I'm good for a pint when we meet up... ;) Good stuff Anatoly, I'm compiling everything now. Thanks again. -e Ethan Schoonover es at ethanschoonover.com +1-206-569-5463 http://ethanschoonover.com From mfoord at python.org Sat May 8 17:18:49 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 17:18:49 +0200 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Suggestion for additional Screen Style Message-ID: <4BE580D9.90604@python.org> Suggestion from a website user. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Suggestion for additional Screen Style Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:48:45 -0400 From: John Nelson To: webmaster at python.org Hello, As with my Python code, I prefer to view web pages unmaximized. I typically have relevant docs open in a browser window to the left of my code editor. It would be nice to have a [linearise] style option in the PEPs that would either remove the left navigation or place content immediately under it. I'd like to reclaim the wide left gutter for perusal. (More precisely, I would like to not press Web Developer > Display by Media Type > Print; CTRL++; every time.) Thanks for your consideration, John B Nelson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdmurray at bitdance.com Tue May 11 20:53:17 2010 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:53:17 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Suggestion for additional Screen Style In-Reply-To: <4BE580D9.90604@python.org> References: <4BE580D9.90604@python.org> Message-ID: <20100511185317.D37D1209520@kimball.webabinitio.net> On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:18:49 +0200, Michael Foord wrote: > Suggestion from a website user. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Suggestion for additional Screen Style > Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:48:45 -0400 > From: John Nelson > To: webmaster at python.org > > > > Hello, > > As with my Python code, I prefer to view web pages unmaximized. I > typically have relevant docs open in a browser window to the left of my > code editor. It would be nice to have a [linearise] style option in the > PEPs that would either remove the left navigation or place content > immediately under it. I'd like to reclaim the wide left gutter for perusal. > > (More precisely, I would like to not press Web Developer > Display by > Media Type > Print; CTRL++; every time.) Presumably this should actually go to docs at python.org, and in fact Ezio already has a patch in one tracker or the other (I forget if it is ours or Sphinx's) to make the left menu collapsible via javascript. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com From aahz at pythoncraft.com Wed May 19 17:17:17 2010 From: aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:17:17 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] FWD: Missing Python RISC OS port Message-ID: <20100519151716.GD19429@panix.com> I'm +0 on this -- but someone else needs to do the work. ----- Forwarded message from "Silas S. Brown" ----- > Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:50:32 +0100 > From: "Silas S. Brown" > To: webmaster at python.org > Cc: dietmar at schwertberger.de, dietmar1 at schwertberger.de, > dietmar2 at schwertberger.de > Subject: Missing Python RISC OS port > > Dear Python maintainers, > > http://www.python.org/download/other says > that RISC OS binaries for Python are > maintained by Dietmar Schwertberger at > www.schwertberger.de. That site redirects > to freenet-homepage.de/schwertberger or > people.freenet.de/schwertberger/ , and > it seems that this has lapsed (it takes > you to a generic "domains available" page). > Additionally, it is not possible to compile > Python from source without a patched version > of the DLK library which was on Schwertberger's page. > > Eventually, I found the binaries at > http://web.archive.org/web/20071223061900/http://python.acorn.de/ > Would it be possible to retrieve these and > save them on python.org so they don't disappear? > > I know the number of people using this port is now low, > but when somebody does need it they really need it. > (For example I've lost the copy that was on my hard > drive and need to re-download.) > > Thanks. > > Silas > > -- > Silas S Brown http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ssb22 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n nx prgrmmng. From mfoord at python.org Wed May 19 20:07:00 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:07:00 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Suggestion for additional Screen Style In-Reply-To: <20100511185317.D37D1209520@kimball.webabinitio.net> References: <4BE580D9.90604@python.org> <20100511185317.D37D1209520@kimball.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <4BF428C4.7050405@python.org> On 11/05/2010 19:53, R. David Murray wrote: > On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:18:49 +0200, Michael Foord wrote: > >> Suggestion from a website user. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Suggestion for additional Screen Style >> Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 10:48:45 -0400 >> From: John Nelson >> To: webmaster at python.org >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> As with my Python code, I prefer to view web pages unmaximized. I >> typically have relevant docs open in a browser window to the left of my >> code editor. It would be nice to have a [linearise] style option in the >> PEPs that would either remove the left navigation or place content >> immediately under it. I'd like to reclaim the wide left gutter for perusal. >> >> (More precisely, I would like to not press Web Developer> Display by >> Media Type> Print; CTRL++; every time.) >> > Presumably this should actually go to docs at python.org, Catching up with my email after a break. Did you forward this to docs at python.org David? Michael > and in fact Ezio > already has a patch in one tracker or the other (I forget if it is ours or > Sphinx's) to make the left menu collapsible via javascript. > > -- > R. David Murray www.bitdance.com > _______________________________________________ > pydotorg-www mailing list > pydotorg-www at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From amk at amk.ca Thu May 20 17:17:06 2010 From: amk at amk.ca (A.M. Kuchling) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:17:06 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 Message-ID: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> The contributor forms at http://localhost:8005/psf/contrib/ linked to http://opensource-definition.org/ for the texts of the Academic Free License 2.1 and Apache License 2.0 texts. opensource-definition.org has been domain-squatted and now shows generic links. I've updated the links on python.org. The Apache 2.0 license was easy to find, but the AFL 2.1 was difficult; I ended up linking to http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.1.php, which is an obsolete mirror of opensource.org. This is because the current AFL version is 3.0 and 2.1 is therefore obsolete. Question: should I add a copy of the AFL 2.1 to python.org? Or does the PSF want to update the contrib forms to use AFL 3.0 instead? --amk From martin at v.loewis.de Thu May 20 19:25:57 2010 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:25:57 +0200 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: <4BF570A5.8080607@v.loewis.de> > Question: should I add a copy of the AFL 2.1 to python.org? Or does > the PSF want to update the contrib forms to use AFL 3.0 instead? We should update the recommend version for contributor agreements to 3.0. Regards, Martin From techtonik at gmail.com Thu May 20 20:47:33 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:47:33 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: What is the trend about AFL? Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? -- anatoly t. On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:17 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > The contributor forms at http://localhost:8005/psf/contrib/ linked to > http://opensource-definition.org/ for the texts of the Academic Free > License 2.1 and Apache License 2.0 texts. > > opensource-definition.org has been domain-squatted and now shows > generic links. > > I've updated the links on python.org. ?The Apache 2.0 license was easy > to find, but the AFL 2.1 was difficult; I ended up linking to > http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.1.php, > which is an obsolete mirror of opensource.org. ?This is because the > current AFL version is 3.0 and 2.1 is therefore obsolete. > > Question: should I add a copy of the AFL 2.1 to python.org? ?Or does > the PSF want to update the contrib forms to use AFL 3.0 instead? > > --amk > > _______________________________________________ > pydotorg-www mailing list > pydotorg-www at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www > From mfoord at python.org Thu May 20 20:53:16 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:53:16 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: <4BF5851C.60003@python.org> On 20/05/2010 19:47, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What is the trend about AFL? > Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? > Sure, but the way it works is that contributors license their work to the PSF under an open source license first - and the PSF license is a terrible license that comes about through the horrors of the Python intellectual property history. We get contributors to license their contributions under more sensible licenses like the Academic free license or the apache license. See: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ Heh, we should *probably* do the same for major contributions to the website as well... Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From amk at amk.ca Thu May 20 21:22:48 2010 From: amk at amk.ca (A.M. Kuchling) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 15:22:48 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: <20100520192248.GA6758@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What is the trend about AFL? > Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the copyright. But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why contributors need to pick one of them. --amk From techtonik at gmail.com Thu May 20 22:53:53 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:53:53 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) Message-ID: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> What is the trend about AFL? >> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? > > Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the > copyright. > > But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant > the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", > what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be the part of this particular software you agree that it will be redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it explicitly. I can only see a point when you want to take GPL code from me and then make it Public Domain in the future. As in this case I may refuse to contribute, you need to bind me as developer with obscure license terms. > They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change > the license on it to be the PSF license. ?The PSF license doesn't > actually say re-licensing is allowed. ?The Apache 2.0 and Academic > Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why > contributors need to pick one of them. Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public Domain at all? Why AFL? Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? What about CC? Was there some discussion about it? Did you ask PSF contributors what license do they prefer (feel more comfortable) to see core Python stuff in? Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is simpler and allow contributions? What PSF is afraid of in 2010 to maintain such complex license? Can you specify in simple words what is required from developers and record it as extension to some simple license like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license? Please do not give me links. I am not a lawyer and not an English native, so I'd like to know the official point of PSF in developer's language. I bet many have question about licensing and AFL in particular, because I, for example, found AFL to be the most contradicting license at all: quoting Wikipedia (the license text is too complex for me): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Free_License """ AFL versions 1.2 and 2.1 are not compatible with the GNU GPL.[1] The Free Software Foundation does not consider version 3.0 to be compatible with the GPL[1], though Eric S. Raymond (a co-founder of the OSI) contends it is GPL compatible.[3] In late 2002, an OSI working draft considered it a "best practice" license.[4] In mid 2006, however, the OSI's License Proliferation Committee found it "redundant with more popular licenses"[2], specifically version 2 of the Apache Software License. """ If "The mission of the foundation is to foster development of the Python community" - it should listen to developers, or better allow them freedom to use, exchange and contribute. Demanding or confusing them only increases FUD factor with D standing for dissatisfaction. Licensing preferences in general are often personal and demotivating, unfortunately. -- anatoly t. From mfoord at python.org Thu May 20 23:14:22 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 22:14:22 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF5A62E.3090005@python.org> On 20/05/2010 21:53, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> >>> What is the trend about AFL? >>> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? >>> >> Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the >> copyright. >> >> But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant >> the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", >> what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? >> > Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be > the part of this particular software you agree that it will be > redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it > explicitly. I can only see a point when you want to take GPL code from > me and then make it Public Domain in the future. As in this case I may > refuse to contribute, you need to bind me as developer with obscure > license terms. > > The PSF needs the source code (the intellectual property) of Python to be secure. This means we need to *know* we have the legal right to distribute it. To ensure this the core developers (all committers) sign a contributor agreement explicitly licensing their contributions to the PSF under a choice of two licenses that the PSF lawyers determined gave the PSF the rights it needs to both redistribute and relicense the whole of the Python source code. If any developer isn't willing to license their contributions to the PSF under these well known and OSF recognised open source licenses then they are free to not contribute to Python, but that would be very odd - to want to contribute to an open source project but not be willing to license your contributions under a compatible open source license. If you read the contributor agreement (which is not long or *overly* legally worded) then you will see that contributors still own their contributions and are free to relicense them under the GPL, declare them public domain, or sell them commercially if they so desire. This is why companies like google, canonical and Microsoft have been able to agree to and sign the PSF contributor agreements. >> They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change >> the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't >> actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic >> Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why >> contributors need to pick one of them. >> > Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really > mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public > Domain at all? > Why AFL? > Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? > What about CC? > Was there some discussion about it? > It was decided by the PSF under the advice of their lawyers quite some time ago. Why do you care about this? > Did you ask PSF contributors what license do they prefer (feel more > comfortable) to see core Python stuff in? > Python core stuff is under the PSF license. This has some rather odd terms as at various times parts of the source code have been owned by several commercial entities. That imposes certain restrictions about the license wording that the PSF is *able* (legally) to use. The only important thing is that the PSF license is a GPL compatible OSF recognised open source license allowing commercial and non-commercial redistribution. > Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is > simpler and allow contributions? > What are you talking about - the PSF license is the license that the Python source code is *distributed* under. It is very liberal, but has nothing to do with contributions to Python. > What PSF is afraid of in 2010 to maintain such complex license? > Can you specify in simple words what is required from developers and > record it as extension to some simple license like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license? > > Please do not give me links. I am not a lawyer and not an English > native, so I'd like to know the official point of PSF in developer's > language. It is a restriction caused by the history of how Python was developed. The obscure wording of the PSF license does not affect what users are free to do with Python (beyond its specific licensing conditions) and isn't related to the question of how contributions are made because we don't use the PSF license for that. > I bet many have question about licensing and AFL in > particular, because I, for example, found AFL to be the most > contradicting license at all: > > Anyone with questions is free to ask. I've rarely heard any questions though, it doesn't seem to be a problem in practise beyond the beauracracy of getting potential contributors to sign an agreement in the first place. > quoting Wikipedia (the license text is too complex for me): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Free_License > """ > AFL versions 1.2 and 2.1 are not compatible with the GNU GPL.[1] The > Free Software Foundation does not consider version 3.0 to be > compatible with the GPL[1], though Eric S. Raymond (a co-founder of > the OSI) contends it is GPL compatible.[3] In late 2002, an OSI > working draft considered it a "best practice" license.[4] In mid > 2006, however, the OSI's License Proliferation Committee found it > "redundant with more popular licenses"[2], specifically version 2 of > the Apache Software License. > """ > > If "The mission of the foundation is to foster development of the > Python community" - it should listen to developers, or better allow > them freedom to use, exchange and contribute. Demanding or confusing > them only increases FUD factor with D standing for dissatisfaction. > Licensing preferences in general are often personal and demotivating, > unfortunately. > All those things are possible under the current licensing situation. If you really want to claim it is *actually* a problem you will have to explain how... Michael Foord -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From martin at v.loewis.de Thu May 20 23:31:58 2010 From: martin at v.loewis.de (=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:31:58 +0200 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF5AA4E.2040502@v.loewis.de> > I am not a lawyer So please stop acting as if you were one. Don't ask legal questions whose answer you might not understand, anyway. Instead, trust us that the procedures that we use actually *were* proposed by a lawyer, and are legally appropriate. Regards, Martin From georg at python.org Fri May 21 03:30:00 2010 From: georg at python.org (Georg Brandl) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:30:00 +0200 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF5E218.9070906@python.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 20.05.2010 22:53, schrieb anatoly techtonik: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> What is the trend about AFL? >>> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? >> >> Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the >> copyright. >> >> But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant >> the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", >> what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? > > Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be > the part of this particular software you agree that it will be > redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it > explicitly. I can only see a point when you want to take GPL code from > me and then make it Public Domain in the future. As in this case I may > refuse to contribute, you need to bind me as developer with obscure > license terms. There's absolutely no "binding" involved. Your code is always yours, and you are free to license it in any other way. *However*, since the code you contribute to Python will be distributed under the Python license, the PSF must be assured that it can do that, now and in the future. This is why you have to release it to *us* under a license that allows this act. >> They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change >> the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't >> actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic >> Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why >> contributors need to pick one of them. > > Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really > mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public > Domain at all? > Why AFL? > Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? > What about CC? [etc, etc.] What *I* would really like to know is why you are asking all these questions, esp. in a way that implies that we don't have satisfying answers. Be assured that we have, that they are mostly nontrivial (since legalese is involved), and that until now I haven't heard of any potential contributor taking back his contributions because he was uncomfortable with either initial license offered. Maybe we can discuss the issue again when your contribution form is due? Georg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkv14hgACgkQN9GcIYhpnLA4EgCffbVdQBl3BWPZYW+jRG7oDMxB pL8AoISI88TnpegBaORo84BQGS73CiBN =zXaV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dgoodger at gmail.com Fri May 21 05:07:13 2010 From: dgoodger at gmail.com (David Goodger) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:07:13 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: <20100520192248.GA6758@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> <20100520192248.GA6758@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >> What is the trend about AFL? >> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? > > Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the > copyright. > > But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant > the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", > what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? > > They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change > the license on it to be the PSF license. ?The PSF license doesn't > actually say re-licensing is allowed. ?The Apache 2.0 and Academic > Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why > contributors need to pick one of them. I believe this is mistaken. Neither the Apache license nor the AFL allow re-licensing. If they do, I can't see it -- please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It's the contributor agreement itself which allows the PSF to re-license the contributions, nothing else. IIRC (3rd-hand from Tim Peters' explanations, probably), the Apache license and AFL were chosen for their patent grants. -- David Goodger From goodger at python.org Fri May 21 05:22:41 2010 From: goodger at python.org (David Goodger) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:22:41 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In addition to what others have written, some pointed replies: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 16:53, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> What is the trend about AFL? >>> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? >> >> Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the >> copyright. >> >> But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant >> the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", >> what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? > > Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be > the part of this particular software you agree that it will be > redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it > explicitly. It is explicit, in the contributor form. Go read it. Now, please, before replying further. > Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really > mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public > Domain at all? No, I believe that is mistaken, as I wrote elsewhere. It's the contributor agreement that allows re-licensing. > Why AFL? > Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? I believe that was because of the patent grant clause that the AFL has, as does the Apache license. > What about CC? > Was there some discussion about it? There was a lot of discussion years ago, before the Creative Commons existed. And most CC licenses are not appropriate for software anyhow. > Did you ask PSF contributors what license do they prefer (feel more > comfortable) to see core Python stuff in? > Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is > simpler and allow contributions? > What PSF is afraid of in 2010 to maintain such complex license? There's an explanation of the history of the license, written in plain English, in the license itself. Go read it. > Can you specify in simple words what is required from developers and > record it as extension to some simple license like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license? No, not without the agreement of all the rights-holders, some of whom are unwilling to remove their layer from the license stack. > Please do not give me links. Please don't be a troll. Yes, you are being a troll. Do your own research, or hire a lawyer to explain all this if it's that important to you. Stop wasting our time. -- David Goodger From techtonik at gmail.com Fri May 21 11:40:27 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:40:27 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Even after being accused in trolling I'll continue, because I really want a FAQ on this. >From my side I must apologize for accusing PSF that it doesn't do what it should. The last paragraph sounds strange, it is not really well thought to be sent, and as a result some people may have pissed off instead of answering reasonably. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:22 AM, David Goodger wrote: > In addition to what others have written, some pointed replies: > >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>>> What is the trend about AFL? >>>> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? >>> >>> Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the >>> copyright. >>> >>> But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant >>> the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", >>> what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? >> >> Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be >> the part of this particular software you agree that it will be >> redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it >> explicitly. > > It is explicit, in the contributor form. Go read it. Now, please, > before replying further. http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ There won't be any question if contribution form didn't contain confusing clauses that only AFL and Apache 2.0 licenses are accepted. Correct me if I wrong, but even if my software is Apache 2.0 licensed, I can not give PSF the right to "create and distribute collective works and derivative works" "under any other open source license approved by a unanimous vote of the PSF board" without consent of all authors. And even Apache 2.0 allows that by default, you still need to comply with its terms, like "4.1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License;". So, to make PSF actions legal towards contributions, you need either: 1. Comply to the terms of Apache 2.0 and AFL licenses (distribute licenses with Python, retain copyright notices, carry prominent notices about changes, etc.) - in this case you don't need any license agreement at all. 2. Consent of all the authors that they agree to submit their work, so that it will become PSF licensed - in this case license doesn't matter. So far I haven't found any Apache 2.0 text in my Python source checkout. Is it because my checkout is partial and covers only Lib and Doc or maybe Python code is not owned by PSF then? I assume that it is because PSF follows path no.2, but also want to protect Python code from patent claims. Why not just include it in agreement in clear text and drop license stuff altogether? >> Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really >> mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public >> Domain at all? > > No, I believe that is mistaken, as I wrote elsewhere. It's the > contributor agreement that allows re-licensing. > >> Why AFL? >> Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? > > I believe that was because of the patent grant clause that the AFL > has, as does the Apache license. So, as I said - this can be mentioned explicitly in agreement itself. Any other goals PSF is trying to achieve with these contributors' agreements? Perhaps collecting some private data from open source contributors? >> What about CC? >> Was there some discussion about it? > > There was a lot of discussion years ago, before the Creative Commons > existed. And most CC licenses are not appropriate for software anyhow. It would be nice to know why. The side effect of this approach is that designers are perhaps not interested in joining Python community at all - their work won't receive due attribution. >> Did you ask PSF contributors what license do they prefer (feel more >> comfortable) to see core Python stuff in? >> Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is >> simpler and allow contributions? >> What PSF is afraid of in 2010 to maintain such complex license? > > There's an explanation of the history of the license, written in plain > English, in the license itself. Go read it. Layman terms at http://www.python.org/psf/license/ sounds like it is a 2 clause BSD license, but BSD is 10 times smaller. According to license, if I use any Python code from standard library (or documentation), I need to: 1. include copyright "Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved" 2. include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made This applies even to the example from documentation. But because nobody does it, PSF License Agreement automatically terminates. Therefore nobody is allowed to "to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or display publicly, prepare derivative works, distribute, and otherwise use Python alone or in any derivative version". It looks like the License contradicts with common sense. Or at least I should stop monitoring changes in Python standard library, because one day I may want to copy paste some snippet to extend it in my app. I used abc.py module from Python 2.6, because it was not present in 2.5. Should I add PSF copyright to my Python app? >> Can you specify in simple words what is required from developers and >> record it as extension to some simple license like >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license? > > No, not without the agreement of all the rights-holders, some of whom > are unwilling to remove their layer from the license stack. I am sure Python 3000 could use a different license at least for standard library. Can I ask PSF who are those right-holders, what proposals were made to them and how did they argument their decision? Did they clearly express their interests? Something makes me think that they just need is a proper attribution and PSF could provide this in many ways to reach an agreement on relicensing. >> Please do not give me links. > > Please don't be a troll. Yes, you are being a troll. > Do your own research, or hire a lawyer to explain all this if it's > that important to you. > Stop wasting our time. You don't want to waste your time to explain PSF license terms to community members? Or anybody asking for clarification automatically becomes a troll and is not accounted as a part of community? Would PSF accept a donation from me to make this research? If it should not be that important for me - why do you demand me to sign a contributor's agreement? Do not get me wrong. I like Python and want it to become better, like everybody else here. But there are plenty of new and more attractive languages for newcomers out there. Language features, clean docs, site design, pictures, polished community services are as equally important as understanding legal implications in this respect. -- anatoly t. From techtonik at gmail.com Fri May 21 12:36:10 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 13:36:10 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: <4BF5A62E.3090005@python.org> References: <4BF5A62E.3090005@python.org> Message-ID: On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Michael Foord wrote: >> >> Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really >> mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public >> Domain at all? >> Why AFL? >> Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? >> What about CC? >> Was there some discussion about it? >> > > It was decided by the PSF under the advice of their lawyers quite some time > ago. Why do you care about this? I was going to dedicate my time to enhance some of pydotorg services. I would like to contribute them under the terms of WTFPL license. From the other side it would be nice (but I do not demand it) to borrow bugfixes from other contributors back, because I will save time for rewriting this stuff for other installations. But I was totally confused by the terms of APL and difference between versions, and differences between Apache 2.0, and PSF license, and the necessity to sign contributors' agreement, send it by mail (yes, real world "postal" mail), perhaps pay a lawyer to validate it? Because everybody can mail you my form. Perhaps I also do not want to disclose my personal details to any of PSF corporation members (of course, because I am a troll). I would like to sign electronic form with my email account. In the end I am the owner, I make all contributions from this account, so the only freedom I gain from signing a contributors' agreement is that if my account is hacked you can immediately send an order to jail me. So, why my email is not enough to sign an agreement? >> Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is >> simpler and allow contributions? >> > > What are you talking about - the PSF license is the license that the Python > source code is *distributed* under. It is very liberal, but has nothing to > do with contributions to Python. I need to sign contributor's agreement to dedicate my code to PSF, but if I want bugfixes back into my code/library, PSF license seems to directly affect it. > Anyone with questions is free to ask. I've rarely heard any questions > though, it doesn't seem to be a problem in practise beyond the beauracracy > of getting potential contributors to sign an agreement in the first place. And how many potential contributors were, ahem, pissed off by this requirement? > All those things are possible under the current licensing situation. If you > really want to claim it is *actually* a problem you will have to explain > how... Suggestion to drop AFL and Apache 2.0 licenses and leave only agreement sent with other reply. > Michael Foord > > -- > http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ > http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog > > READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of > your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from > any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, > shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, > non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have > entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and > assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and > privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me > from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. I release you. Amen. -- anatoly. From mfoord at python.org Fri May 21 13:17:55 2010 From: mfoord at python.org (Michael Foord) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:17:55 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: <4BF5A62E.3090005@python.org> Message-ID: <4BF66BE3.6050902@python.org> On 21/05/2010 11:36, anatoly techtonik wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Michael Foord wrote: > >>> Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really >>> mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public >>> Domain at all? >>> Why AFL? >>> Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? >>> What about CC? >>> Was there some discussion about it? >>> >>> >> It was decided by the PSF under the advice of their lawyers quite some time >> ago. Why do you care about this? >> > I was going to dedicate my time to enhance some of pydotorg services. > We have been discussing contributions to Python itself - as far as I know we don't have a system in place for licensing contributions to pydotorg services, although we probably should. > I would like to contribute them under the terms of WTFPL license. Why do you want to control what license you contribute under? No large open source project that I am aware of allows that, for sensible reasons related to intellectual property protection that have been explained to you. > From > the other side it would be nice (but I do not demand it) to borrow > bugfixes from other contributors back, because I will save time for > rewriting this stuff for other installations. But I was totally > confused by the terms of APL and difference between versions, and > differences between Apache 2.0, and PSF license, and the necessity to > sign contributors' agreement, send it by mail (yes, real world > "postal" mail), perhaps pay a lawyer to validate it? Because everybody > can mail you my form. You are *still* fundamentally misunderstanding. There is a big difference between the license that contributions *to the PSF* are made under (which does not affect you) and the license that Python itself (not necessarily or specifically "pydotorg services" whatever they may be) are available under. Please understand this difference before continuing the discussion. > Perhaps I also do not want to disclose my > personal details to any of PSF corporation members If you don't trust the PSF then you probably *shouldn't* contribute. That is pretty fundamental I'm afraid. > (of course, because > I am a troll). I would like to sign electronic form with my email > account. In the end I am the owner, I make all contributions from this > account, so the only freedom I gain from signing a contributors' > agreement is that if my account is hacked you can immediately send an > order to jail me. So, why my email is not enough to sign an agreement? > > >>> Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is >>> simpler and allow contributions? >>> >>> >> What are you talking about - the PSF license is the license that the Python >> source code is *distributed* under. It is very liberal, but has nothing to >> do with contributions to Python. >> > I need to sign contributor's agreement to dedicate my code to PSF, but > if I want bugfixes back into my code/library, PSF license seems to > directly affect it. > > Nope - incorrect. (You really need to *read* the agreement otherwise you will continue to waste people's time.) Licensing your contributions to the PSF does *not* affect whatever else you may choose to do with your code. >> Anyone with questions is free to ask. I've rarely heard any questions >> though, it doesn't seem to be a problem in practise beyond the beauracracy >> of getting potential contributors to sign an agreement in the first place. >> > And how many potential contributors were, ahem, pissed off by this requirement? > > None as far as I know - possibly one including you. >> All those things are possible under the current licensing situation. If you >> really want to claim it is *actually* a problem you will have to explain >> how... >> > Suggestion to drop AFL and Apache 2.0 licenses and leave only > agreement sent with other reply. > > You still haven't shown how the current situation is actually a problem. Michael Foord >> Michael Foord >> >> -- >> http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ >> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog >> >> READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of >> your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from >> any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, >> shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, >> non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have >> entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and >> assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and >> privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me >> from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. >> > I release you. Amen. > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (?BOGUS AGREEMENTS?) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. From webmaster at python.org Wed May 19 21:06:46 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 20:06:46 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Finding mailing lists on web site Message-ID: <4BF436C6.4070708@python.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Finding mailing lists on web site Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 18:57:06 -0700 From: Monte Milanuk To: webmaster at python.org Hello, Recently I was trying to find the python-tutor mailing list page to recommend it to someone in a forum... I went to python.org and started looking for the mailing lists list. I looked several places, including under 'Community'... nothing obvious jumped out at me. I tried the 'Special Interest Group' page... but no listing for 'tutor' there that I could find. I did a site search for 'tutor' and found the link to this page... http://www.python.org/community/lists/ for the Mailing Lists... and the notation on the page i.e. 'Community> Mailing Lists' would imply that it *should* be found under the Community page. I went back and looked under 'Community' and there is nothing mentioning 'Mailing Lists' at all on this page: http://www.python.org/community/ In fact, the expanded navigation menu for 'Community' when viewed from this page is about half the length of what is visible on the other page. Perhaps some navigation menus got messed up or something? HTH, Monte -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From guido at python.org Thu May 20 21:56:46 2010 From: guido at python.org (Guido van Rossum) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 12:56:46 -0700 Subject: [pydotorg-www] [PSF-Board] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote: > What is the trend about AFL? I don't know, but I expect it's not hugely popular yet. I have no idea what the differences between 3.0 and 2.1 are. > Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? That is the license under which the PSF licenses everything to 3rd parties. There are a number of reasons why we don't recommend others use this license; there are also a number of reasons why we can't change the license the PSF itself uses. So we want others to license their stuff to the Python using a more generally accepted license. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) From sdeibel at wingware.com Thu May 20 23:10:30 2010 From: sdeibel at wingware.com (Stephan Deibel) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:10:30 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BF5A546.3030400@wingware.com> anatoly techtonik wrote: >> They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change >> the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't >> actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic >> Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why >> contributors need to pick one of them. >> > > Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really > mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public > Domain at all? > No, the contributor agreement is what adds the right to relicense. Obviously you can't just drop a license willy nilly. That would make the whole thing rather pointless, no? ;-) > Why AFL? > Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate? > What about CC? > Was there some discussion about it? > Yes, extensive review by lawyers. The initial license was chosen based on analysis of how good a legal foundation they made for the transaction. The rights that come to the PSF are those in that license + what the contributor agreement grants. - Stephan From sdeibel at wingware.com Fri May 21 15:38:07 2010 From: sdeibel at wingware.com (Stephan Deibel) Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:38:07 -0400 Subject: [pydotorg-www] [PSF-Board] Vanished link for AFL v2.1 In-Reply-To: References: <20100520151706.GA4763@amk-desktop.matrixgroup.net> Message-ID: <4BF68CBF.6090802@wingware.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: > That is the license under which the PSF licenses everything to 3rd > parties. There are a number of reasons why we don't recommend others > use this license; there are also a number of reasons why we can't > change the license the PSF itself uses. I'll just add to this some history: We certainly tried to get rid of some of the license stack in the PSF license but it's at least difficult and more likely hopeless. Some of the entities involved no longer exist and it's not clear where their copyright ownership rights went. This means we're stuck with the licenses under which we received the various parts of Python and cannot ask the copyright holder(s) to relicense it to us under a different license. Actually, the way to get rid of some of the stack is to completely rewrite the code covered by those portions. Maybe that would eventually happen, although it would take some doing to be sure the old code is really gone. It's just much safer and easier not to try this. Anatoly, I hope you've figured out the differences between copyright ownership and licensing from the other responses. Copyright ownership is the sudo of intellectual property. You can't do everything but you can do a lot. Also, contributing to the PSF does not mean giving up your copyright ownership. I got the impression maybe these things were at the core of your objections/questions/concerns. I do feel like this is all made clear on http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ -- if not suggestions for improving that would certainly be constructive. - Stephan From webmaster at python.org Sun May 23 20:25:02 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 19:25:02 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Mercurial mirros Message-ID: <4BF972FE.8040508@python.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Mercurial mirros Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 19:50:03 +0200 From: Andrej Krpic To: webmaster at python.org hello, I believe "Mercurial mirros" link on http://www.python.org/dev/, which points to http://hg.python.org/ should point to http://code.python.org/hg -Andrej -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmaster at python.org Tue May 25 01:21:07 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 00:21:07 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Differences between Python 2.x vs 3.x releases? Message-ID: <4BFB09E3.4060202@python.org> Should we have an explanation of the differences between Python 2 and Python 3 prominently linked to from the front page - or perhaps from the Python 2 / 3 download pages? Currently python.org is not a useful place to visit if you want to know the difference or which you should download... :-) Michael -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Differences between Python 2.x vs 3.x releases? Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:08:59 +0300 From: Shimmy Weitzhandler To: webmaster at python.org I was trying to find an answer to this question on the Python website, but I didn't manage to it. I think it should be stated, or at list a redirection-link for beginners who don't know. Best regards, Shimmy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From techtonik at gmail.com Tue May 25 22:03:46 2010 From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 23:03:46 +0300 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Differences between Python 2.x vs 3.x releases? In-Reply-To: <4BFB09E3.4060202@python.org> References: <4BFB09E3.4060202@python.org> Message-ID: Good idea, but it may become lost. -- anatoly t. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:21 AM, wrote: > Should we have an explanation of the differences between Python 2 and > Python 3 prominently linked to from the front page - or perhaps from the > Python 2 / 3 download pages? > > Currently python.org is not a useful place to visit if you want to know > the difference or which you should download... :-) > > Michael > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Differences between Python > 2.x vs 3.x releases? Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 02:08:59 +0300 From: Shimmy > Weitzhandler To: > webmaster at python.org > > I was trying to find an answer to this question > on the Python website, but I didn't manage to it. > I think it should be stated, or at list a redirection-link for beginners > who don't know. > > Best regards, > Shimmy > > _______________________________________________ > pydotorg-www mailing list > pydotorg-www at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmaster at python.org Wed May 26 16:43:28 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:43:28 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: broken link Message-ID: <4BFD3390.4010308@python.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: broken link Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 09:42:33 -0500 From: Daniel Stutzbach To: webmaster at python.org, webmaster at pythonology.org I was just browsing through some of the Python Success stories and I noticed that the website for "DevNet: A web-based RSS aggregator developed in Python" no longer appears to exist. You might want to remove the story, or just remove the broken links. There's one link at the top of the story, and another on the author's name at the bottom. Just thought you'd like to know, -- Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D. President, Stutzbach Enterprises, LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmaster at python.org Thu May 27 11:55:51 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:55:51 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Factual Error re wx Message-ID: <4BFE41A7.6000806@python.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Factual Error re wx Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 09:31:18 +0100 From: Gadget Steve (HM) To: At http://www.python.org/doc/faq/gui/#id4 the FAQ read: wxWindows is a portable GUI class library written in C++ that's a portable interface to various platform-specific libraries; wxWidgets is a Python interface to wxWindows. wxWindows supports Windows and MacOS; on Unix variants, it supports both GTk+ and Motif toolkits. wxWindows preserves the look and feel of the underlying graphics toolkit, and there is quite a rich widget set and collection of GDI classes. See the wxWindows page for more details. wxWidgets is an extension module that wraps many of the wxWindows C++ classes, and is quickly gaining popularity amongst Python developers. You can get wxWidgets as part of the source or CVS distribution of wxWindows, or directly from its home page. The name wxWindows has been retired, (I think it was causing some hassle with MicroSnot), I think that above should read something like: wxWidgets, (http://www.wxwidgets.org) is a free, portable GUI class library written is C++ that provides a native look and feel on a number of platforms, with MS-Windows, MacOS-9/X, GTK, X11, Motif, WinCE, MGL, PalmOS & OS2 all listed as current stable targets. It has language bindings available to a number of languages including C, C++, *Python*, Pearl, Ruby, etc. wxPython, (http://www.wxpyton.org) is the python language binding for wxwidgets, while it often lags slightly behind the official wxWidgets releases it also offers a number of features, via pure python extensions, that are not yet available in other language bindings. There is an active user and developer community for wxPython. Both wxWidgets and wxPython are free, open source, software with permissive licences that allow their use in commercial products as well as in freeware or shareware. Gadget/Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmaster at python.org Fri May 28 10:03:28 2010 From: webmaster at python.org (webmaster at python.org) Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:03:28 +0100 Subject: [pydotorg-www] Fwd: Spelling Typo in EDU-SIG: Python in Education (Suprised -> Surprised) Message-ID: <4BFF78D0.7000902@python.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Spelling Typo in EDU-SIG: Python in Education (Suprised -> Surprised) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:25:15 -0400 From: Titus Barik To: webmaster at python.org Hello, There is a typo on the following page: http://www.python.org/community/sigs/current/edu-sig/ The word "suprised" should be spelled as "surprised". This is under the section "Textbooks and other non-free books". Thanks, Titus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: