Why so few Python jobs? (and licenses)

Paul Rubin phr-n2001d at nightsong.com
Tue Oct 9 04:01:16 CEST 2001


Cliff Wells <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> writes:
> The downside of purchasing a commercial library is that you usually
> don't get the source code - just object files you can link against.
> Now imagine building a huge application that depends on those
> libraries.  Now imagine the library provider going out of business.
> Now picture yourself rewriting an entire application to use a
> different library (it happened at our company).  It seems that
> licensing a GPL'd library has advantages that may make the
> negotiation worthwhile.

It can be even stickier unless the GPL'd library supplier is
completely the sole developer and didn't accept any patches from
anyone without getting signed documents from the submitter assigning
outright ownership of the patches including for non-GPL'd use.  (And
some people who have signed such assignments in the past without
realizing what they were getting into are now pissed about it).  If I
submit a patch to a GPL'd program, it's with the understanding that
the patch is GPL'd, unless I agree otherwise.  If the patch is
accepted and patched program later gets distributed under a non-GPL,
I'd feel I had a claim against both the developer and his customer.

GPL'd programs often include patches from a LOT of people.  The
original author is on shaky ground if he does a non-GPL version
without getting approval from everyone who submitted patches.  It's
better for closed source developers to avoid GPL'd stuff altogether.
People who want to develop closed-source products and charge for them
ought to be willing to pay for the libraries and tools they use
anyway.



More information about the Python-list mailing list