Public Domain Python

[Tom]

Tim,

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term 'Public Domain' since it seems to
have specific legal definitions which I didn't know about, and which don't
necessarily coincide with what I'm after.

The point that only specific implementations of Python are copyrighted is
critical to me.  I don't mind an implementation being copyrighted, and I
don't even mind being charged for it (if it's good).  I'm happy to work on
Windows with a commercial IDE and language implementation, as long as what I
produce isn't tied to a proprietary platform or technology.

When I see the way that programs like IE or RealAudio push their users
towards the same few channels of corporate controlled content, I get real
scared about the future.    That's why it does matter that the code I
produce not be in a language like Visual Basic or Java, and that it run on
Linux.

Thanks for the clarifications (and the work on CPython),

Tom

(still smarting a bit from being whacked on the head over Python's decidedly
non-public-domain nature).

"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCCEDGHFAA.tim_one at email.msn.com...
> [Tom, upon being whacked on the head over Python's decidedly non-public-
>  domain nature]
> > That does put a kink in my enthusiasm.  So, if Python isn't public
> > domain then why does the Python community have that good, Linux-like,
> > public spirit.
>
> As others have tortured you with already, Linux is another example of
> software about as far from public domain as things get.
>
> > I refer to the way that people promote the language and help each
> > other, etc. - as if we are doing something for the public good,
> > rather than just for the good of CNRI or BeOpen.
>
> Have you read the license that came with your Python?  Whether it's the
old
> (CWI) or new (CNRI or BeOpen) license, they impose almost no restrictions
on
> you.  The license that comes with ActiveState's ActivePython is much more
> restrictive in some ways, but still not obnoxious to most.  BTW, CNRI is a
> tax-exempt non-profit, and claims *everything* they do is "in the public
> interest" -- although that seems to be defined by whatever they happen to
do
> <wink>.
>
> Python's copyright holders have a long tradition of leaving Python users
in
> peace, regardless of what they do with the language.  Guido moved to
> BeOpen.com because they promised to keep it that way, and we (Guido and
his
> team) are in fact in the process of signing binding legal papers to make
> sure that promise is kept "no matter what".
>
> The bottom line for Python is that people trust Guido; the bottom line for
> Linux is that people trust Linus.  Unfortunately, Guido learned too late
in
> Python's life that legalities matter, so is in the unhappy position of
> seeing his life's work effectively owned by somebody else.  He's still a
> great whiner, though, so don't underestimate his effectiveness <wink>.
>
> > By your definition, is C++ (my previous language) public domain?  Or
does
> > AT&T hold a copyright?
>
> ISO and ANSI hold copyrights on the C++ standard.  Nobody holds copyright
on
> the *ideas* in C++ (because they can't -- they surely would if they
could!).
> Stroustrup and assorted publishers hold copyrights on various books about
> C++.  Any particular implementation of C++ that you've used was almost
> certainly copyrighted by its author (I don't know of any public domain
> implemenation of C++).
>
> Public domain used to be the very definition of "the public good", and I'm
> unclear on exactly when or why it fell so far out of favor.  I still use
it
> whenever I can.
>
> which-isn't-often-alas!-ly y'rs  - tim
>
>
>
>