RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 26 18:04:06 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060120.html

On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> And licenses are fluid, it may be a piece of cake to
>> get one of those 'tools' un-GPL'ed, even if they are.
>
> I wouldn't even know whom to ask.

On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> It shouldn't be too hard to use Python's main configure script to  
> calculate
> the information necessary to build libffi. A lot of it is already  
> calculated
> anyway (sizeof various type, endianness), some can be hardcoded  
> (FFI_NO_RAW_API).
>
> In PyObjC I just compile the files I need from my setup.py. But I  
> have an easy task,
> I just need to support two CPU architectures on one OS.

Let's please be sure the license isn't fine _as is_ before thinking  
about asking people to change them or rewriting the build system! I  
did not look at *all* the files listed as being GPL, but the first  
two in the list were not.

James

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-January/060120.html below:

python-dev Summary for 2006-01-01 through 2006-01-15