On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:45:27 -0400
Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis(a)pitrou.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Should we add the MIT license to our benchmarks repo as well?
> >
>
> I'm fine with it, although is there an issue with changing it? I know that
> the code has no history and thus doesn't strictly need to use the PSF
> license, but IANAL.
Well there's no license right now, which makes it non-open source
software :)
Regards
Antoine.
--
Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
>
> > Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are
> there
> > any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or
> > any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
>
> Note that not all benchmarks run nightly. twisted_accept for example
> run out of TCP connections. benchmarks.py is your helper. We improved
> the US runner qutie significantly (the main runner.py file), mostly by
> improving reporting. So it can save a .json file or upload stuff to a
> codespeed instance.
>
One thing at a time. =)
>
> Other than that, they all measure something. It's really up to you to
> decide which ones measure "something significant". Of course for our
> purposes benchmarks which require large libs are more interesting than
> others, but they all do something interesting. We removed those that
> we consider completely uninteresting.
>
I will start with ones that will port to Python 3 easily, then go from
there.
Should we add the MIT license to our benchmarks repo as well?
cheers
Antoine.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:16:34 -0400
Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
> > >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
> > >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for
> > that,
> > >> >> which
> > >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
> > >> > inclusion
> > >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
> > >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks
> > themselves
> > >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
> > >> > getting
> > >> > contributor agreements.
> > >>
> > >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
> > >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
> > >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
> > >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
> > >> allowed.
> > >>
> > >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
> > >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
> > >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
> > >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
> > >> itself.
> > >>
> > >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
> > >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
> > >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
> > >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
> > >> license.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Nick.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Speed mailing list
> > >> Speed(a)python.org
> > >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
> > >
> > >
> > > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
> > > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
> > > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license
> > for
> > > our half of the repo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Alex
> >
> > Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
>
>
> Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are there
> any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or
> any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
>
--
Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
>> >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is
>> >> >> different
>> >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for
>> >> >> that,
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
>> >> > inclusion
>> >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
>> >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks
>> >> > themselves
>> >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
>> >> > getting
>> >> > contributor agreements.
>> >>
>> >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
>> >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
>> >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
>> >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
>> >> allowed.
>> >>
>> >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
>> >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
>> >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
>> >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
>> >> itself.
>> >>
>> >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
>> >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
>> >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
>> >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
>> >> license.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Nick.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Speed mailing list
>> >> Speed(a)python.org
>> >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
>> >
>> >
>> > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
>> > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
>> > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license
>> > for
>> > our half of the repo.
>> >
>> >
>> > Alex
>>
>> Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
>
>
> Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are there
> any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or
> any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
Note that not all benchmarks run nightly. twisted_accept for example
run out of TCP connections. benchmarks.py is your helper. We improved
the US runner qutie significantly (the main runner.py file), mostly by
improving reporting. So it can save a .json file or upload stuff to a
codespeed instance.
Other than that, they all measure something. It's really up to you to
decide which ones measure "something significant". Of course for our
purposes benchmarks which require large libs are more interesting than
others, but they all do something interesting. We removed those that
we consider completely uninteresting.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
> >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
> >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for
> that,
> >> >> which
> >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
> >> > inclusion
> >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
> >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks
> themselves
> >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
> >> > getting
> >> > contributor agreements.
> >>
> >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
> >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
> >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
> >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
> >> allowed.
> >>
> >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
> >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
> >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
> >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
> >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
> >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
> >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
> >> license.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Nick.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speed mailing list
> >> Speed(a)python.org
> >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
> >
> >
> > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
> > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
> > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license
> for
> > our half of the repo.
> >
> >
> > Alex
>
> Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are there
any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or
any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
Thanks for clearing that up.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
>> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
>> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for that,
>> >> which
>> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
>> >
>> >
>> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
>> > inclusion
>> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
>> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks themselves
>> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
>> > getting
>> > contributor agreements.
>>
>> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
>> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
>> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
>> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
>> allowed.
>>
>> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
>> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
>> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
>> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
>> itself.
>>
>> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
>> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
>> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
>> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
>> license.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nick.
>>
>> --
>> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speed mailing list
>> Speed(a)python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
>
>
> First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
> under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
> file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license for
> our half of the repo.
>
>
> Alex
Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for that,
> which
> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
> >
> >
> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
> inclusion
> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks themselves
> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
> getting
> > contributor agreements.
>
> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
> allowed.
>
> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
> itself.
>
> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
> license.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
> _______________________________________________
> Speed mailing list
> Speed(a)python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
>
First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license
for our half of the repo.
Alex
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <brett(a)python.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
>> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
>> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for that, which
>> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
>
>
> But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale inclusion
> of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
> dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks themselves
> (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without getting
> contributor agreements.
The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
allowed.
If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
itself.
The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
license.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for that,
> which requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
>
But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
inclusion of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks themselves
(e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without getting
contributor agreements.
-Brett
> --
> Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speed mailing list
> Speed(a)python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
>
>
