Why so few Python jobs? (and licenses)

[Joshua Macy]

Paul Rubin wrote:

> 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.
> 


   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!"

   Joshua