Menu
▾
▴
matplotlib-users
|
From: eliben <el...@gm...> - 2008-08-01 08:32:17
|
For those who may be interested: I plan to use mpl for some serious plotting in my programs featuring wxPython GUIs. To get started, I've written a couple of non-trivial demos with mpl and wxPython and posted them online (code and all). http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/ It is my hope that others will find this code useful. And if you have any corrections, insights or general comments, please let me know. Eli -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18770262.html Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2008-08-01 16:05:09
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/ Cool demos: short and to the point. Alan PS Even though these are just short demos, please include a software license. Otherwise some people will hesitate to even look at them. |
|
From: eliben <el...@gm...> - 2008-08-01 16:29:30
|
Alan G Isaac wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: >> http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/ > > Cool demos: short and to the point. > Alan > PS Even though these are just short demos, > please include a software license. > Otherwise some people will hesitate to > even look at them. > On my website it says that all code is LGPL, unless stated otherwise. But you're probably right and it makes sense to add a license to each file. So I added it in the comment at the top. Interesting. I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code from a demo because of a lack of license. Eli -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18778255.html Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2008-08-01 17:04:50
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code > from a demo because of a lack of license. It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license". I think what most people (myself included) would like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly means "use this however you want without worrying about any restrictions, not even attribution requirements". I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally) for such scripts: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html If public domain is uncomfortable, then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable. <URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html> Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
|
From: eliben <el...@gm...> - 2008-08-01 17:43:41
|
Alan G Isaac wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: >> I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code >> from a demo because of a lack of license. > > It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license". > I think what most people (myself included) would > like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public > domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly > means "use this however you want without worrying about > any restrictions, not even attribution requirements". > > I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally) > for such scripts: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > > If public domain is uncomfortable, > then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable. > <URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html> > > Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license. > > Cheers, > Alan Isaac > Although we're markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I've battled with the question of licensing my code. It's documented here: http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/ The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free software, and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown libraries, but still... Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code work. He got it for free, because I've placed my demo publicly online. But he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how he does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This isn't fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to use the code in commercial applications. Eli -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2008-08-01 18:08:32
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/ It is not the case that everything that is "code" needs a common license. You may wish to read http://www.scipy.org/License_Compatibility Or not. ;-) But I find John very persuasive. (All the more so given what he has contributed.) Last comment: as someone who teaches, I give away useful knowledge all the time, without conditions. This probably shapes my view about what constitutes appropriate "sharing" of simple scripts, since I see this as a part of teaching. (Also, as a valuable part of the Python culture.) Cheers, Alan Isaac |
|
From: \Jonathan H. http://JonathansCorner.com\ <jon...@po...> - 2008-08-01 18:15:53
|
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, eliben <el...@gm...> wrote: > > > > Alan G Isaac wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > >> I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code > >> from a demo because of a lack of license. > > > > It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license". > > I think what most people (myself included) would > > like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public > > domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly > > means "use this however you want without worrying about > > any restrictions, not even attribution requirements". > > > > I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally) > > for such scripts: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > > > > If public domain is uncomfortable, > > then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable. > > <URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html> > > > > Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license. > > > > Cheers, > > Alan Isaac > > > > Although we're markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I've battled > with the question of licensing my code. It's documented here: > > http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/ > > The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free > software, > and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown > libraries, but still... > > Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code > work. He got it for free, because I've placed my demo publicly online. But > he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how > he > does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This > isn't fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to > use > the code in commercial applications. > My understanding of what can and cannot be licensed, at least in U.S. law and (as far as I know) some other areas as well, is that what you are trying to guard is something you cannot guard unless you get a patent. The specific text of a program, its concrete form, and perhaps other "concrete implementation" features are covered (or at least can be covered) by copyright. Knowledge, including "how he does the thing the demo taught him," is not subject to copyright. That is, if he legally reads your code, and clones functionality, there is no way barring a software patent that you can restrict this. I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the copyright says, "Don't build on or extend this unless you want your work to be covered by my chosen license," I will be extremely cautious about building off of them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of your demos into my own 2000 line program, your requirements of fairness require me to place my entire 2000 line program under the terms of the license you chose. This is a significant deterrent to some programmers. > > Eli > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html > Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-users mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users > -- -- Jonathan Hayward, chr...@gm... ** To see an award-winning website with stories, essays, artwork, ** games, and a four-dimensional maze, why not visit my home page? ** All of this is waiting for you at http://JonathansCorner.com ++ Would you like to curl up with one of my hardcover books? ++ You can now get my books from http://CJSHayward.com |
|
From: eliben <el...@gm...> - 2008-08-02 04:49:29
|
JonathansCorner.com wrote: > > I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the copyright > says, "Don't build on or extend this unless you want your work to be > covered > by my chosen license," I will be extremely cautious about building off of > them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of your demos into my own 2000 > line program, your requirements of fairness require me to place my entire > 2000 line program under the terms of the license you chose. > > This is a significant deterrent to some programmers. > I think you're mixing up GPL and LGPL here. LGPL was born especially for the purpose of being copyleft but not viral. With LGPL, if you link my module into your code, you won't have to release your code, only my module's. With GPL, you'd have to open both. While http://www.scipy.org/License_Compatibility is convincing, it also speaks about GPL in this manner, giving LGPL only a short after-thought in the end. I will however consider lowering the license bar for my demo code, since it relies too much on BSD-licensed MPL stuff. Eli -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18786128.html Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
From: Jonathan H. http://JonathansCorner.c. <chr...@gm...> - 2008-08-01 18:09:41
|
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, eliben <el...@gm...> wrote: > > > > Alan G Isaac wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > >> I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code > >> from a demo because of a lack of license. > > > > It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license". > > I think what most people (myself included) would > > like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public > > domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly > > means "use this however you want without worrying about > > any restrictions, not even attribution requirements". > > > > I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally) > > for such scripts: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html > > > > If public domain is uncomfortable, > > then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable. > > <URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html> > > > > Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license. > > > > Cheers, > > Alan Isaac > > > > Although we're markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I've battled > with the question of licensing my code. It's documented here: > > http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/ > > The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free > software, > and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown > libraries, but still... > > Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code > work. He got it for free, because I've placed my demo publicly online. But > he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how > he > does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This > isn't fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to > use > the code in commercial applications. > My understanding of what can and cannot be licensed, at least in U.S. law and (as far as I know) some other areas as well, is that what you are trying to guard is something you cannot guard unless you get a patent. The specific text of a program, its concrete form, and perhaps other "concrete implementation" features are covered (or at least can be covered) by copyright. Knowledge, including "how he does the thing the demo taught him," is not subject to copyright. That is, if he legally reads your code, and clones functionality, there is no way barring a software patent that you can restrict this. I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the copyright says, "Don't build on or extend this unless you want your work to be covered by my chosen license," I will be extremely cautious about building off of them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of your demos into my own 2000 line program, your requirements of fairness require me to place my entire 2000 line program under the terms of the license you chose. This is a significant deterrent to some programmers. > > Eli > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html > Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Matplotlib-users mailing list > Mat...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users > -- -- Jonathan Hayward, chr...@gm... ** To see an award-winning website with stories, essays, artwork, ** games, and a four-dimensional maze, why not visit my home page? ** All of this is waiting for you at http://JonathansCorner.com ++ Would you like to curl up with one of my hardcover books? ++ You can now get my books from http://CJSHayward.com |
|
From: Alan G I. <ai...@am...> - 2008-08-02 05:03:48
|
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote: > if you link my module into your code, you won't have to > release your code, I read Jonathan's point as being: there is no such "linking" possibility with such demo scripts. This indeed is why I questioned the relevance of the LGPL for such things, earlier on, even though the LGPL is in principle (and often in practice) a much more user friendly license than the GPL. Again, not all code needs the same license, and simple scripts seem (to me) to beg to be placed in the public domain. But of course the key rule is always: s/he who holds the copyright picks the license. Cheers, Alan Isaac |
|
From: eliben <el...@gm...> - 2008-08-02 05:35:55
|
Alan G Isaac wrote: > > I read Jonathan's point as being: there is no such > "linking" possibility with such demo scripts. > This indeed is why I questioned the relevance of > the LGPL for such things, earlier on, even though > the LGPL is in principle (and often in practice) > a much more user friendly license than the GPL. > I agree. So, I've modified the license of the demos to "public domain". Thanks for the interesting discussion Eli -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18786329.html Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
