Why so few Python jobs? (and licenses)

[Paul Rubin]

Joshua Macy <l0819m0v0smfm001 at sneakemail.com> writes:
>    Can you name a single time this has ever happened with something
> included in the standard Python library? The Python Labs crew has,
> according to what I've seen posted here, spent inordinate number of
> hours and dollars trying to make sure that the Python license was both
> acceptable to the FSF and permitted the development of closed-source
> commercial products.  From where I sit this looks like (possibly
> unintentional) anti-Python FUD--"ooh, better not use Python...don't
> know if its libraries are properly licensed...beware! beware!"

I don't think anything in the standard Python library is GPL'd.
(GPL-compatible yes, GPL'd no).  Since the Python allows usage in
closed-source programs, the GPL issues don't apply.  However, the
discussion seemed to pertain to independently distributed add-on
libraries, not just the standard library included with Python.

If I submitted a patch to the standard Python library, I'd expect the
patch to be distributed under the same Python license that the library
is distributed in, i.e. closed-source usage would be ok.  I might be
less motivated in the first place to contribute substantial patches
than if Python were GPL'd, since I'd in effect be working for
closed-source vendors without getting paid, but that's a totally
separate issue.