From: K. G. <kim...@gm...> - 2008-09-05 11:22:41
|
Hi Dean, On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:27, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > I was hasty in praising the patch... But the fact that you're copying > code from Python (which I think is GPLed) and modifying it to be > applied to a Boost Licensed project/file is going to raise some red > flags. > > IANAL, but I think we cannot merge this based on licensing issues. Yep, it didn't occur to me at the time, but when you mentioned the word "license", it seemed like a risky thing. Based on the Python license Divye posted, it looks pretty safe, but what do I know? > I think it's better you raise it with the Python developers mailing > list and submit a patch there. Yes, I think I will bounce it over there, just to see if I can move this forward. > That said, I don't think spending any more time in this unit test just > to make it work in Windows where Python is broken isn't the best thing > to do at the moment. The simplest thing (and most effective thing) to > do is to mark it as an expected failure in Windows. Sure, I agree. I just thought I had it canned :) > As for better use of time, adding more tests would be nice -- for > example, adding a test for making sure POST works through the CGI > script, the permutations of the .post(...) API call. This looks like something I could spend some time on. > If you're up for it, refactoring the URI parser would be a nice thing > to do too -- to move it from network/protocol/http/impl/request.hpp to > a different file in network/utils/. This looks like fun as well, we'll see if I can find some time to look into it. I wouldn't want to claim it, though, so if anybody else is up for it, feel free. > I hope you understand that there are other more important things to > fix than this single failing unit test where the cause of the failure > is a third-party application we so happen to use for testing (which > apparently doesn't have problems in other platforms). Absolutely. Though I must admit that getting all tests to run on Windows is a priority for me, as that's my base platform. Cheers, - Kim |
From: Divye K. <div...@gm...> - 2008-09-05 10:38:12
|
Hi Kim, Dean, On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...> wrote: > > Dean, Divye, > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 09:37, Dean Michael Berris > > <mik...@gm...> wrote: > >> > >> Divye, since this is your code, would you mind taking a look and > >> applying the patch and maybe committing if it's alright with you? I'm > >> guessing the change has to be under the Boost Software License as > >> well. ;-) > > > > I'm not sure if there could be any license issues, as I copied and > > modified two methods from the Python base lib. > > > > I was hasty in praising the patch... But the fact that you're copying > code from Python (which I think is GPLed) and modifying it to be > applied to a Boost Licensed project/file is going to raise some red > flags. > Python has its own license ( http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5.1/license/) that is not incompatible with the GPL but doesn't have its copyleft clause. The relevant clauses are reproduced for your opinions: 2. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, PSF hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or display publicly, prepare derivative works, distribute, and otherwise use Python alone or in any derivative version, provided, however, that PSF's License Agreement and PSF's notice of copyright, i.e., "Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved" are retained in Python alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee. 3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or incorporates Python or any part thereof, and wants to make the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python. I don't know how this license will interoperate with the BSL, but it doesn't seem to be incompatible like the GPL. Any opinions? > > I think it's better you raise it with the Python developers mailing > list and submit a patch there. > I agree. Divye -- An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) My official web site: http://people.iitr.ernet.in/shp/061305/ Webmaster: http://www.drkapoorsclinic.com Blog: http://divyekapoor.blogspot.com |
From: K. G. <kim...@gm...> - 2008-09-05 18:16:05
|
Hi there, On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:38, Divye Kapoor <div...@gm...> wrote: > >> I think it's better you raise it with the Python developers mailing >> list and submit a patch there. > > I agree. I bounced this with the Python devs, and after almost logging a bug, I noticed that it's fixed in their trunk. The Python 2.6 release will have this bug fixed. I'm not so sure about the space-in-paths thing, but first things first :) Case closed, - Kim |