1. Re: EU 2.4, 2.5 and Open Source
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:20:47 -0700, Jason Gade
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>but I cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would think that would be
>the case.
Because GPL and I now understand LGPL are Nazi-style-open-source.
(eg see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html sections 5, 6, 8, and 9,
and the notable absence of any 'Larger work' clause).
The licences from M$ are considerably easier to comprehend, imo.
Of course if Rob goes "public domain" (difficulties aside) then
no-rules, but also tantamount to a public declaration that he no
longer gives a toss what happens to Eu... To date, he has not
confirmed what licence he plans to use, afaik, not that I can imagine
he would impose any such silliness.
>That is, I cannot understand why anyone would think that their code
>not related to improving or extending the interpreter would have to be
>open source.
>
>I don't know of any open source (or even any closed source language, for that
>matter) that would require that.
Some sample links that I just looked at,
Lua: http://www.lua.org/license.html
D/Perl:
http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/dellavedova/software/artistic2.html
Ruby: http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/about/license.txt
Python: http://www.python.org/psf/license/
Some of these have been specifically written presumably because there
is no really suitable licence for programming languages and at least
two contain "There is no GPL-like "copyleft" restriction." or similar.
Regards,
Pete
PS My take on the original question is that if you stick with 2.4 or
2.5 then the original licence holds, period. Rob's recent assurances
aside, you should still check the licence (if any) for 3.0 and later
carefully before upgrade, not just for this but any other unforseen
subtlety.
