Re: dpkg-scanlibs
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
Ben> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:22:02PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann
Ben> wrote:
>> To return to being serious, I think that this script is short
>> enough that it's not worth mandating python installation for
>> all developers just to use it. It would be trivial to rewrite
>> it in Perl. Can Python produce small excecutables that do not
>> depend on pythonic libraries?
>>
Ben> I think wichert's intention is to turn all of dpkg-dev into
Ben> python. So, this one small script is just the first stone in
Ben> the greater scheme of things :)
I don't know too much about licenses, and I don't know where to ask
this. The Python license is not compatible with the GPL (it is
published in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), and
personally I don't understand the following parts of the license of
Python 2.1 (I'm not sure but I think the license of Python 2.0 is the
same as Python 2.1):
"...
This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in all
respects by the law of the State of California..."
...
This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in all
respects by the law of the State of Virginia..."
I know Debian has its own free software guidelines. Could you confirm
me, if the license of Python 2.1 complains with them?
--
Vladimir Támara Patiño.
Home Page: http://www.bigfoot.com/~vtamara
GPG Key: http://www.tamarapatino.com/vladimir/gpg.html
Reply to: