[Twisted-Python] What does the LGPL mean in terms of python?
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4d67606724653784cee9682c0bddf9f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hey folks, I've checked out the archives but almost everything I've read just amounted to "it's under the LGPL, read that". I understand the LGPL with regards to the classic case of C libraries. You can call the public functions, even add your own new public functions but the code that is in the library itself has to be released under the terms of the LGPL. The examples in the LGPL of using just the header file doesn't really map into python. For example, is a subclass a derivative work? By the LGPL, it seems to be since it's combined completely with the code that is under the LGPL. Let's say I had ChatServer derived from TCPServer, is it the intent of the licensing that my code must be placed under the LGPL? If subclassing is allowed to occur and those new classes can be placed under any license the user desires, it seems that any licensing inconvenience that doesn't involve cutting and pasting code can be worked around by merely extending the existing classes. If it's not allowed, I'm still not sure what the boundary lines are. This would be great information to add to the FAQ and include with the distribution as licensing clarifications and what the intent of the licensing scheme is. Thanks, Chris -- Chris Green <cmg@dok.org> Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d6328babd9f9a98ecc905e1ccac2495e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:17, Chris Green wrote:
Chris, Thanks for your questions. Your concerns are well-founded. However, they are thankfully soon to be irrelevant. Googling the twisted-python archives will give you some background on the intention and implications of the LGPL as it applies to Twisted. However, the LGPL was originally selected as Twisted was largely code that I wrote personally and many of the interested parties were large corporations with no experience, knowledge, or interest in open source. I wanted a license which was not terribly restrictive but still required those companies to do investigation into the license, requiring in so doing that they become at least marginally involved in the community process. In that, the confusing wording of the LGPL as it regards Python code was an asset. It would be a halfway accurate statement that I selected the LGPL exactly because it doesn't make any sense. Now we live in a different world than what Twisted was born into. First of all, middleware vendors know what Twisted is and who I am, which is a bit of a shift :-). More importantly, IBM, a massive bastion of technological conservatism, has embraced open source. By doing this, they have sent a message to corporate lawyers everywhere that they need to be aware of the free/open source software phenomenon and be able to react appropriately to different licenses. More and more companies are aware of the need to interact with the community regardless of whether it's necessary. Finally, Twisted is no longer a personal effort of my own. It is truly a community project; in fact, I think I am falling far behind exarkun in terms of number of lines committed :). The community is large enough to self-sustain without forcing new users to step forward because of an inconvenient license. For these reasons, and also to facilitate contribution by those who have the right to release their own work as open source but NOT to consign copyright to it (such as students at and employees of MIT), we are going to be switching to an MIT-style (no pun intended) license soon. The real work is going to be filing the verbose license statement off every source file in the tree and replacing it with a new one. This has been a long time in coming - the decision was finally made at PyCon this year and I'm sorry the change hasn't been implemented yet. On that note, I think we should change the license text at the top of each file to simply refer to the TWISTED-LICENSE file in the distribution or something like that, rather than including disclaimers itself.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4d67606724653784cee9682c0bddf9f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph@divmod.com> writes:
Thanks for your questions. Your concerns are well-founded. However, they are thankfully soon to be irrelevant.
Yay :) That's great news. Having been on both sides of the opensource/corporate use of opensource, I'm glad to know that the project is so big that this has become an issue ;). I'm very happy about the proposed license style. Thanks, Chris -- Chris Green <cmg@dok.org> You now have 14 minutes to reach minimum safe distance.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4d67606724653784cee9682c0bddf9f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph@divmod.com> writes:
You now have 14 minutes to reach minimum safe distance.
And how far away is that!??
That was the message from a MacGuyver episode where a nuclear reactor was undergoing meltdown so I'll say further than a stone's throw :) -- Chris Green <cmg@dok.org> Let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8ca35506ac08cebd833ab53032896c0b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:48:08PM -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: | For these reasons, and also to facilitate contribution by those who have | the right to release their own work as open source but NOT to consign | copyright to it (such as students at and employees of MIT), we are going | to be switching to an MIT-style (no pun intended) license soon. This is great news. I have the same issue here, I can now submit code via any open source license, but the code I write belongs to the company that pays the bills... and, for their contribution, they'd like to have their name associated with the work. Kind Regards, Clark -- Clark C. Evans Prometheus Research, LLC Chief Technology Officer Turning Data Into Knowledge cce@prometheusresearch.com www.prometheusresearch.com (main) 203.777.2550 (cell) 203.444.0557
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3a7e70f3ef2ad1539da42afc85c8d09d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Clark C. Evans wrote:
I'm curious, how will we specify who owns copyright of Twisted? Centralized in one place (COPYRIGHT?), so effectively everyone gets the same "amount" of copyright? Per-file? I'm not familiar with how multi-copyright-holder projects usually work. -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project ---------+ http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/be41176552d22a39595f90e92dc2dd64.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Saturday 29 May 2004 11:06, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Some interesting info on this subject by ESR... http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html Jake
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d6328babd9f9a98ecc905e1ccac2495e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 13:17, Chris Green wrote:
Chris, Thanks for your questions. Your concerns are well-founded. However, they are thankfully soon to be irrelevant. Googling the twisted-python archives will give you some background on the intention and implications of the LGPL as it applies to Twisted. However, the LGPL was originally selected as Twisted was largely code that I wrote personally and many of the interested parties were large corporations with no experience, knowledge, or interest in open source. I wanted a license which was not terribly restrictive but still required those companies to do investigation into the license, requiring in so doing that they become at least marginally involved in the community process. In that, the confusing wording of the LGPL as it regards Python code was an asset. It would be a halfway accurate statement that I selected the LGPL exactly because it doesn't make any sense. Now we live in a different world than what Twisted was born into. First of all, middleware vendors know what Twisted is and who I am, which is a bit of a shift :-). More importantly, IBM, a massive bastion of technological conservatism, has embraced open source. By doing this, they have sent a message to corporate lawyers everywhere that they need to be aware of the free/open source software phenomenon and be able to react appropriately to different licenses. More and more companies are aware of the need to interact with the community regardless of whether it's necessary. Finally, Twisted is no longer a personal effort of my own. It is truly a community project; in fact, I think I am falling far behind exarkun in terms of number of lines committed :). The community is large enough to self-sustain without forcing new users to step forward because of an inconvenient license. For these reasons, and also to facilitate contribution by those who have the right to release their own work as open source but NOT to consign copyright to it (such as students at and employees of MIT), we are going to be switching to an MIT-style (no pun intended) license soon. The real work is going to be filing the verbose license statement off every source file in the tree and replacing it with a new one. This has been a long time in coming - the decision was finally made at PyCon this year and I'm sorry the change hasn't been implemented yet. On that note, I think we should change the license text at the top of each file to simply refer to the TWISTED-LICENSE file in the distribution or something like that, rather than including disclaimers itself.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4d67606724653784cee9682c0bddf9f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph@divmod.com> writes:
Thanks for your questions. Your concerns are well-founded. However, they are thankfully soon to be irrelevant.
Yay :) That's great news. Having been on both sides of the opensource/corporate use of opensource, I'm glad to know that the project is so big that this has become an issue ;). I'm very happy about the proposed license style. Thanks, Chris -- Chris Green <cmg@dok.org> You now have 14 minutes to reach minimum safe distance.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4d67606724653784cee9682c0bddf9f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph@divmod.com> writes:
You now have 14 minutes to reach minimum safe distance.
And how far away is that!??
That was the message from a MacGuyver episode where a nuclear reactor was undergoing meltdown so I'll say further than a stone's throw :) -- Chris Green <cmg@dok.org> Let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8ca35506ac08cebd833ab53032896c0b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 02:48:08PM -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: | For these reasons, and also to facilitate contribution by those who have | the right to release their own work as open source but NOT to consign | copyright to it (such as students at and employees of MIT), we are going | to be switching to an MIT-style (no pun intended) license soon. This is great news. I have the same issue here, I can now submit code via any open source license, but the code I write belongs to the company that pays the bills... and, for their contribution, they'd like to have their name associated with the work. Kind Regards, Clark -- Clark C. Evans Prometheus Research, LLC Chief Technology Officer Turning Data Into Knowledge cce@prometheusresearch.com www.prometheusresearch.com (main) 203.777.2550 (cell) 203.444.0557
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3a7e70f3ef2ad1539da42afc85c8d09d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Clark C. Evans wrote:
I'm curious, how will we specify who owns copyright of Twisted? Centralized in one place (COPYRIGHT?), so effectively everyone gets the same "amount" of copyright? Per-file? I'm not familiar with how multi-copyright-holder projects usually work. -- Twisted | Christopher Armstrong: International Man of Twistery Radix | Release Manager, Twisted Project ---------+ http://radix.twistedmatrix.com/
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/be41176552d22a39595f90e92dc2dd64.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Saturday 29 May 2004 11:06, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Some interesting info on this subject by ESR... http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html Jake
participants (5)
-
Chris Green
-
Christopher Armstrong
-
Clark C. Evans
-
Glyph Lefkowitz
-
Jake Morrison