

Lamson 1.0 Released (a Python SMTP server by Zed Shaw) - billpaetzke
http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1274557940.html

======
VanL
I am the person Zed is talking about. I am not sure what Zed heard/read, but
it seems clear that he is taking something out of context. Of course the GPL
applies to Python. It goes just as far as copyright does... which is just not
as far as some people think and assert that it does.

There is real danger in pushing the bounds of copyright, even if it is for a
good purpose. We need less intellectual property right now, not more.

~~~
zedshaw
Actually, Van, I was being a dick. I went back and read it and I am very sorry
for saying that. I've since rewritten it to not be so critical and harsh
toward you.

My apologies:

<http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1274557940.html>

~~~
pook
This is why we all love you, you asshole.

~~~
erlanger
I generally prefer people who consider their words, and hold some back.

~~~
vegai
EAFP

~~~
erlanger
<http://eafp.org/> ?

But you must be referring to the phrase "easier to ask for forgiveness than
permission." I'm not sure exception-handling theory applies to human
discourse.

~~~
regularfry
I was going to say that the phrase pre-dates exception-handling theory and
therefore _must_ be originally about human discourse, but I checked wikiquote
and it's attributed to Grace Hopper. Now I've got no idea what it was about!

------
prodigal_erik
Lamson still _drops email_ that it can't transcode, rather than preserve the
octets from the wire. Shaw is on record as believing this is acceptable
behavior. Please make sure your users agree before you run it.

~~~
dagw
Any links to how and why it does this? Lamson looked like something I might
have a use for, but that sounded a bit scary.

~~~
prodigal_erik
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658267> where he asks in english not
whether this fails (he already knows it does) but _how often_

[http://lamsonproject.org/docs/unicode_encoding_and_decoding....](http://lamsonproject.org/docs/unicode_encoding_and_decoding.html)

------
steadicat
Link to the actual project web site (nowhere to be found):
<http://lamsonproject.org/>

------
fierarul
Why did he cave in to all the license talk and release it as BSD ?

If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why
not leave the license to GPL and be done with it ?

~~~
zedshaw
I decided that since I haven't worked on Lamson for a while, and I'm kind of
bored with it, that I'd rather have people use it without having to constantly
bug me about the GPL.

If you think about it from a marketing perspective, trying to "sell" GPL
software to Python is like trying to sell Internet Explorer to a Linux long
beard. Not only do they not want it, but they hate it and will look for anyway
around it.

I got another project I'm working on that is going to come out AGPL soon and
I'll see how that goes.

~~~
jnoller
You are right; much of the python community dislikes the GPL (myself included)
but I don't know of widespread "how the hell do we get around it" disease.
Most of us just see GPLed code, shrug, and move on.

You seem to be making it out like people within the community are hell bent on
screwing people who release software into the wild as open source, which
bothers me a bit.

------
gjm11
Even with Zed's changes to the text, I'm completely baffled by what he says
about some people allegedly thinking that "Python delinks".

First he links to some blog post where someone threw out 20 questions about
the GPL, and got approximately a million comments. I read about half way
through the comments before losing the will to live, and didn't see anyone
claiming anything like "Python delinks". (I also searched for the bizarre word
"delink"; it isn't there.)

Then he links to Van Lindberg's lightning talk, where he does not by any
possible stretch of the imagination say or imply or suggest or support
anything even slightly like "Python delinks". He hardly gets as far as
_mentioning_ Python in his five minutes. I have no idea how anyone's belief
that "Python delinks", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, could be
"reinforced" by anything he said.

I also asked Google about <<<python delink>>> and it didn't turn up anything
remotely like what Zed appears to be talking about.

It's hard to be sure, though, because Zed never actually says what this weird
belief is that he's commenting on. "Python delinks", "the GPL doesn't apply to
Python" -- I'm pretty sure no one with a brain has said either of those crazy
things, so what _is_ this belief that he's caricaturing and disagreeing with?
Zed never says.

(He does go on to make a positive claim about what the GPL allegedly means for
Python software, namely that if you write something that can optionally use
something GPLed to provide an extra feature it wouldn't otherwise have, then
you have to release it under the GPL. I think that's debatable, but in any
case disagreeing with it is not at all the same thing as saying that "the GPL
doesn't apply to Python" or that "Python delinks".)

~~~
alnayyir
He's already apologized for the comments he made towards VanL. Your comment
has little value to distinguish itself from what is already in the thread.
Please stop doing your part to fan the flames.

~~~
gjm11
Eh?

1\. The comments I'm remarking on are in Zed's article _after_ his changes.

2\. It's not "the comments he made towards VanL" that bother me, apart from
his claim (which is still there) that somehow VanL's lightning talk encouraged
the idea that "Python delinks". What's lacking isn't an _apology_ but an
_explanation_.

3\. I think what I said differs from other comments in the discussion here in
both content and emphasis. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

4\. I have no intention of fanning any flames. What I want is to understand
what Zed is saying, which at the moment doesn't seem to make much sense.

