Re: package naming; was ITP: woody
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:44:06PM +0100, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> OT: does anybody here know how the discussion on the python 2.0
> license is going? Woody also have a curses interface that require
> python 2.0
0. There will be python2.0-* packages in woody in the near future. They
won't replace the existing python-* packages, though. This is to give people
a choice.
1. The Python(Labs) crew recently left BeOpen, and moved to Digital
Creations (the Zope company). This might give a new turn to the license
discussion.
2. From the people involved in the issue that I recently had contact with,
none sounded like this thing was a settled issue (in either way). All seemed
to have a certain degree of hope that some settlement can be reached
sometimes. Still, I did not get the impression that a solution is
immediately underway, but let's see.
3. It looks like Zope will get a new license. It's not yet decided what will
be changed. One possibility is that they drop the ZPL in favour of some
other well-known publicly accepted license. It's also possible that they
make the ZPL fully GPL compatible. If that would happen, it would be quite
strange if the Python license (with Python's author in their house) was more
restrictive. Let's see what happens.
Until the issue of GPL compatibility is settled, I will continue to
distribute GPL compatible Python packages (i.e. packages based on pre-1.6
source) in Debian.
Since Python 2.0 is perfectly free software, I will also distribute it in
Debian. The Python 2.0 packages won't satisfy dependencies on the existing
python names, I'll let the package maintainers decide if the license of
their package is fine with Python 2.0. Therefore, the Python 2.0 won't act
as a drop-in replacement for the old Python 1.5.2 packages.
Gregor
Reply to: