On 2/5/2016 9:37 AM, Alexander Walters wrote: > > > On 2/5/2016 12:27, Emile van Sebille wrote: >> On 2/1/2016 9:20 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> On 02/01/2016 08:40 AM, R. David Murray wrote: >> <snip> >>>> On the other hand, if the distros go the way Nick has (I think) been >>>> advocating, and have a separate 'system python for system scripts' that >>>> is independent of the one installed for user use, having the >>>> system-only >>>> python be frozen and sourceless would actually make sense on a >>>> couple of >>>> levels. >>> >>> Agreed. >> >> Except for that nasty licensing issue requiring source code. >> >> Emile > Licensing requires, in the GPL at least, that the *modified* sources be > made *available*, not that they be shipped with the product. Looking at > the Python license, and what tools already do, there is zero need to > ship the source to stay compliant. Hmm, the annotated Open Source Definition explicitly states "The program must include source code" -- how did I misinterpret that? Emile http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4