Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Pierre Raybaut
Hi all,

Python(x,y) 1.1.0 is now available on http://www.pythonxy.com.
Python(x,y) is a free Python/Eclipse/Qt distribution providing a
complete scientific development environment.

Main new features (take a look at the new screenshots on the website) :
3D visualization (with Mayavi2), Enthought Tool Suite and new Pydev version.

Changes history :

    * Added:
          o Pydev 1.3.15 - New interactive console
            <http://pydev.sourceforge.net/console.html>! (code
            completion, history management, auto-import, send selected
            code to console, ...)
          o Enthought Tool Suite 2.7.0 (including MayaVi 2, the powerful
            2D and 3D scientific visualization tool)
            Special thanks to Gaël Varoquaux
            <http://gael-varoquaux.info/> for helping us integrating ETS
            in /Python(x,y)/ and testing Mayavi 2
          o VTK 5.0
          o Cython 0.9.6.13.1 - Cython is a language that makes writing
            C extensions for the Python language as easy as Python itself
          o GDAL 1.5.0 - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
          o Windows installer now supports the .egg packages
          o SetupTools 0.6c8
    * Corrected:
          o Uninstall: PyParallel and PySerial were not removed
    * Updated:
          o Python(x,y) documentation

--

P. Raybaut
Python(x,y)
http://www.pythonxy.com


_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Neal Becker
Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?

_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Ondrej Certik
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?

Seems like that according to:

http://pythonxy.com/license.php

Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
contribute to a non-opensource solution.

Ondrej
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

David Warde-Farley-2
On 16-Apr-08, at 5:24 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>> Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>
> Seems like that according to:
>
> http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>
> Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
> that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
> contribute to a non-opensource solution.

Hmm... I read that license, quite puzzling.

IANAL, but each of the included packages in Python(x,y) have their  
own licenses, and most of the major ones are licensed under the BSD  
license or something similar, which permit commercial use. I'm not  
sure that a license on a software collection can regulate use of its  
more liberally licensed components. At the very least it would be  
hard to enforce. So, maybe what's restricted is the use of the Python
(x,y) installer by a commercial entity? I really have no idea.

Also, I think there may be some murky water concerning distributing  
GPL'd packages under this license (I notice PyQt is distributed under  
the GPL).  Again, no law degree here, but it seems like it might be a  
problem.

David
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Michael Abshoff-3
David Warde-Farley wrote:

Hi,

> On 16-Apr-08, at 5:24 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>>> Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>> Seems like that according to:
>>
>> http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>>
>> Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
>> that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
>> contribute to a non-opensource solution.
>
> Hmm... I read that license, quite puzzling.

That puts it nicely. The announcement email states that

Python(x,y) 1.1.0 is now available on http://www.pythonxy.com.
Python(x,y) is a free Python/Eclipse/Qt distribution providing a
complete scientific development environment.

and around here free is generally meant in either the BSD or GPL way.
The "Non-profit OSL 3.0" license might be a free software license by
definition, but as Ondrej stated it reduces my interest to zero once I
saw the license.

> IANAL, but each of the included packages in Python(x,y) have their  
> own licenses, and most of the major ones are licensed under the BSD  
> license or something similar, which permit commercial use. I'm not  
> sure that a license on a software collection can regulate use of its  
> more liberally licensed components. At the very least it would be  
> hard to enforce. So, maybe what's restricted is the use of the Python
> (x,y) installer by a commercial entity? I really have no idea.
>
> Also, I think there may be some murky water concerning distributing  
> GPL'd packages under this license (I notice PyQt is distributed under  
> the GPL).  Again, no law degree here, but it seems like it might be a  
> problem.

IANAL either, but the licsense states

Python(x,y) software collection is licensed under the terms of the
    following license:

and I read that that the license covers all it components. It isn't only
PyQt, but also components of MinGW like the compiler and so on that is
under the GPL. So this seems more than fishy.

> David

Cheers,

Michael

> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
>

_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Robert Kern-2
In reply to this post by David Warde-Farley-2
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, David Warde-Farley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 16-Apr-08, at 5:24 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>  > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]>
>  > wrote:
>  >> Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>  >
>  > Seems like that according to:
>  >
>  > http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>  >
>  > Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
>  > that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
>  > contribute to a non-opensource solution.
>
>  Hmm... I read that license, quite puzzling.
>
>  IANAL, but each of the included packages in Python(x,y) have their
>  own licenses, and most of the major ones are licensed under the BSD
>  license or something similar, which permit commercial use. I'm not
>  sure that a license on a software collection can regulate use of its
>  more liberally licensed components. At the very least it would be
>  hard to enforce. So, maybe what's restricted is the use of the Python
>  (x,y) installer by a commercial entity? I really have no idea.
>
>  Also, I think there may be some murky water concerning distributing
>  GPL'd packages under this license (I notice PyQt is distributed under
>  the GPL).  Again, no law degree here, but it seems like it might be a
>  problem.

IANAL. TINLA.

At least in the US, collections of other copyrighted works can have
their own copyright and licensing terms. Each of the individual works
also has an independent copyright and potentially a license. The
application of the Non-Profit OSL to the collection does not imply
that each of the components falls under that license, just the
collection. A clarification on the Python(x,y) page would be in order.

The Python(x,y) license cannot place additional restrictions on the
redistribution of the particular GPLed code. It can place restrictions
on the collected work, but if one were to extract the GPLed code from
the collection, one should be able to only deal with the GPL and not
the license of the collection. Or rather, if the license of the
collection attempts to forbid that, then Python(x,y) cannot legally
include the GPLed components as part of the collection.

For example, the official OpenBSD CDs are copyrighted and have
restricted distribution. However, the CDs include GPLed packages like
gcc.

  http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
 -- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Pierre Raybaut
In reply to this post by Pierre Raybaut
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>
> Seems like that according to:
>
> http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>
> Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
> that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
> contribute to a non-opensource solution.
>
> Ondrej

I am very sorry for all this misunderstanding.
First of all, the Non-profit OSL is an open-source license. And obviously
it is the software collection which is licensed under it, not the
individual packages which all remain under their own license/copyright (so
the only restriction is that any "derived work" would be under Non-profit
OSL : but software created using Python(x,y) is absolutely NOT a "derived
work" - on the contrary, another software based on Python(x,y) would be a
"derived work").

Anyway, I try to keep an open mind, and I have no interest in explaining
or defending this license in particular. So, as I posted earlier, I can
switch to OSL v3 if this remains ambiguous to a lot of people.

PR

_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Robert Kern-2
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Python(x,y) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > > Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>  >
>  > Seems like that according to:
>  >
>  > http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>  >
>  > Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
>  > that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
>  > contribute to a non-opensource solution.
>  >
>  > Ondrej
>
>  I am very sorry for all this misunderstanding.
>  First of all, the Non-profit OSL is an open-source license.

I think you need to be more careful with that language. The Non-profit
OSL very explicitly fails to meet the first clause of the Open Source
Definition:

http://opensource.org/docs/osd
"""
1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
"""

>  And obviously
>  it is the software collection which is licensed under it, not the
>  individual packages which all remain under their own license/copyright

It is not exactly obvious. Since there is no mention of the individual
licenses, one may easily think that you are trying to claim that this
license covers each package, not just the collection. A paragraph of
clarification on the license page would help a lot.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
 -- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Pierre Raybaut
>>  And obviously
>>  it is the software collection which is licensed under it, not the
>>  individual packages which all remain under their own license/copyright
>
> It is not exactly obvious. Since there is no mention of the individual
> licenses, one may easily think that you are trying to claim that this
> license covers each package, not just the collection. A paragraph of
> clarification on the license page would help a lot.

You are absolutely right: if it was so obvious, maybe it would have not
scared so many people!

On the previous Python(x,y) license, I did mention something like "all
packages included in Python(x,y) are distributed under their own
copyright/license". But when I updated the website, I tried to simplify
the license page... and it seems that I cut too much!
So, I will mention it again.

But I think that it will not be enought to reassure people. The terms
"Non-profit" seem to be a real problem in people's mind. So, I think I
will switch to OSL (even if I am convinced that it is not a real issue)
which has been approved by OSI.

Thanks for your comments.

PR

_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Pearu Peterson-3
In reply to this post by Pierre Raybaut
On Thu, April 17, 2008 10:03 am, Python(x,y) wrote:

>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neal Becker <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Python(x,y) is restricted to only use for non-profit?
>>
>> Seems like that according to:
>>
>> http://pythonxy.com/license.php
>>
>> Just a couple days ago there used to be an open source license. Well,
>> that reduces me interest a lot, as I am not really motivated to
>> contribute to a non-opensource solution.
>>
>> Ondrej
>
> I am very sorry for all this misunderstanding.
> First of all, the Non-profit OSL is an open-source license. And obviously
> it is the software collection which is licensed under it, not the
> individual packages which all remain under their own license/copyright (so
> the only restriction is that any "derived work" would be under Non-profit
> OSL : but software created using Python(x,y) is absolutely NOT a "derived
> work" - on the contrary, another software based on Python(x,y) would be a
> "derived work").
>
> Anyway, I try to keep an open mind, and I have no interest in explaining
> or defending this license in particular. So, as I posted earlier, I can
> switch to OSL v3 if this remains ambiguous to a lot of people.

I think everyone has the right to choose whatever license s/he will
use for its software and not feel bad about it. PERIOD.

In many cases BSD license is preferred because
this allows using it most freely, both in open source as well as
commercial products. In that sense BSD seems to most suitable for library
type of software provided that the author of software wants that the
product can be used as wildly as possible - that is basically the aim
of creating library type of software anyway.

On the other hand, BSD license may not be suitable for end products
as anyone could take the code and start selling it without having
obligations to the original author. Here it is appropriate to
think of protecting the work by choosing another license from BSD.
(Note that selling library software can be very difficult and hence
the need to protect such libraries from selling as products, has higher
threshold.)
It seems that Python(x,y) falls more to the category of end products
rather than being a library like software and choosing a more restricted
license seems appropriate.
I think it is great that such software are released as open source at all.

Regards,
Pearu

_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Gael Varoquaux
In reply to this post by Pierre Raybaut
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 09:27:31AM +0200, Python(x,y) wrote:
> But I think that it will not be enought to reassure people. The terms
> "Non-profit" seem to be a real problem in people's mind. So, I think I
> will switch to OSL (even if I am convinced that it is not a real issue)
> which has been approved by OSI.

It is a real issue. People in eg comany labs are going to want to use
Python(x,y). They cannot if its under non-profit. The Python scientific
community is not really one that is centered on use of the tools for
hobby.

If you are going to change license, I think it is best you choose a major
and well-known license, eg BSD if you don't want copyleft, or GPL if you
do.

My 2 cents,

Gaël
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

cdavid
In reply to this post by Pearu Peterson-3
Pearu Peterson wrote:
>
> I think everyone has the right to choose whatever license s/he will
> use for its software and not feel bad about it. PERIOD.

I don't think anyone said or implied the contrary. The project was
announced as being open source, while being released under a license
which was not obviously open source; some people felt this was a bit
strange at first, but it just looks like a misunderstanding.

Personally, I think that as a rule, if you *want* to release something
under an open source license, you are better choosing the BSD or the GPL
by default, because they are well known, massively used, and everybody
more or less understand what they imply. Most of the time, the license
is dictated by the project you are contributing to anyway (I personally
much prefer the GPL to BSD, but I guess that now, 95 % of my open source
code is under the BSD :) ).

cheers,

David
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Alan G Isaac
In reply to this post by Pearu Peterson-3
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, (EEST) Pearu Peterson apparently wrote:
> I think everyone has the right to choose whatever license s/he will
> use for its software and not feel bad about it. PERIOD.
...
> I think it is great that such software are released as
> open source at all.

I strongly agree.

But it is the case that many people pick licenses that are
not well suited to their goals.  It can be useful to ask
them if they have considered the implication of a particular
license.

It is also the case that picking a license that is not
obviously liberal (MIT or BSD) or well-known copyleft
(LGPL, GPL) can be a bad idea for a new open source project
that is trying to attract a user base.  The discussion in
this thread illustrates why.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac



_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Python(x,y) - New release 1.1.0

Ondrej Certik
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Alan G Isaac <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, (EEST) Pearu Peterson apparently wrote:
>  > I think everyone has the right to choose whatever license s/he will
>  > use for its software and not feel bad about it. PERIOD.
>  ...
>
> > I think it is great that such software are released as
>  > open source at all.
>
>  I strongly agree.
>
>  But it is the case that many people pick licenses that are
>  not well suited to their goals.  It can be useful to ask
>  them if they have considered the implication of a particular
>  license.
>
>  It is also the case that picking a license that is not
>  obviously liberal (MIT or BSD) or well-known copyleft
>  (LGPL, GPL) can be a bad idea for a new open source project
>  that is trying to attract a user base.  The discussion in
>  this thread illustrates why.

Exactly. One should (imho) just use well known opensource licenses.

Ondrej
_______________________________________________
SciPy-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user