Thread: Re: [beepy-devel] FW: beepy
Status: Alpha
Brought to you by:
jpwarren
Menu
▾
▴
beepy-devel
|
From: Justin W. <dae...@ei...> - 2006-10-04 22:58:37
|
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:48 -0600, Ivan R. Judson wrote: > > > > > Hi Justin, > > > > I'm wondering if you're still supporting/developing beepy. I > > have an interest in a couple of projects that could benefit > > from beepy, and I notice it has a few issues (4 bugs, test > > won't pass for me on windows, ssl not supported without twisted). > > > > I'd be happy to work on these, but I'd prefer to be working > > on software with a BSD or at least less restrictive license > > than LGPL or GPL. > > > > Any chance I can convince you to modify the license in > > exchange for a healthy dose of contribution? Hi Ivan, I haven't been actively developing beepy for a while because I don't have a direct personal need for it at the moment, and the userbase has been pretty quiet about bugs or features. That said, I'm happy to spend a bit of time improving it if someone is using it and needs some work done on it. beepy is LGPL, which is a pretty permissive license. What aspects of the licensing are you finding problematic? I'm always open to persuasion, so feel free to plead your case. Some active development would be good for beepy. -- Justin Warren <dae...@ei...> |
|
From: Andy D. <de...@oo...> - 2006-10-04 23:46:51
|
On 05/10/2006, at 7:00 AM, Justin Warren wrote: > beepy is LGPL, which is a pretty permissive license. What aspects > of the > licensing are you finding problematic? Probably that LGPL becomes GPL unless code is dynamically linked so unless he wants to wrap his entire Python distro somehow in a dylib, beepy implies GPL as far as lawyers go. (Opinion from two different intellectual property lawyers in two different employers over the last 8 years.) Many people misunderstand LGPL and assume it is more permissive than in reality. |
|
From: Justin W. <dae...@ei...> - 2006-10-05 00:27:17
|
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 07:47 +0800, Andy Dent wrote: > On 05/10/2006, at 7:00 AM, Justin Warren wrote: > > > beepy is LGPL, which is a pretty permissive license. What aspects > > of the > > licensing are you finding problematic? > > Probably that LGPL becomes GPL unless code is dynamically linked so > unless he wants to wrap his entire Python distro somehow in a dylib, > beepy implies GPL as far as lawyers go. (Opinion from two different > intellectual property lawyers in two different employers over the > last 8 years.) > > Many people misunderstand LGPL and assume it is more permissive than > in reality. My experience of legal opinions is that they are highly specific to the individual circumstances under which they are given; indeed, reality and the law occasionally contradict one another. I will respectfully disagree with the general statement above, as far as it applies to beepy. My reading of Section 6 in particular leads me to a different view. However, it is not my intention to stifle people's ability to use the library. I originally intended for the library to be usable by anyone, but that if modifications to it were made, that everyone could benefit from them. Given the niche nature of beepy, and the passage of time, I am less concerned with forcing people to share than I once was; I would like to think that if someone did improve beepy significantly that they would want to share their work with others as I have shared mine with you. The BSD license has been proposed, which is essentially a free-for-all license. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Perhaps a Pythonic license of some kind? -- Justin Warren <dae...@ei...> |
|
From: Ivan R. J. <ju...@mc...> - 2006-10-05 15:39:36
|
> Hi Ivan, > > I haven't been actively developing beepy for a while because > I don't have a direct personal need for it at the moment, and > the userbase has been pretty quiet about bugs or features. > That said, I'm happy to spend a bit of time improving it if > someone is using it and needs some work done on it. Well, it's open source, if I need it fixed up, I can do it :-). Mostly, I wanted to make sure the same functionality existed for BEEPy whether you used twisted or not, and that it works on windows. These are pretty simple tasks. Other than that I was considering building an application that used BEEPy. > beepy is LGPL, which is a pretty permissive license. What > aspects of the licensing are you finding problematic? The only difference is the clause that requires that you provide sources for the library if the user asks for them. But, in effect, to work with some large entities on collaborations (private companies) they have taken the stance that anything GPL or LGPL can't even be observed by their employees. The lawyers toss it out before it gets to them. So on many of my projects, where I work with these companies I have to use either BSD software or write my own. Clearly, I don't want to write my own if it's already done. The other argument would be that commercial adoption of the library usually revolves around a "proprietary value add" to the library (something the company did with/or to the library to make it valuable to customers). If this is something they did to the library, the LGPL mandates they give away what they consider their intellectual property. This hinders commercial adoption significantly. Anyhow, it's up to you, I'm not disagreeable about this, but I would like to integrated BEEPy into a large project I'm doing that would require it to be BSD. Hope things are going well; I wasn't sure I could track you down after a couple of years :-) --Ivan > I'm always open to persuasion, so feel free to plead your > case. Some active development would be good for beepy. > > -- > Justin Warren <dae...@ei...> > |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X