Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #42865 > unrolled thread

im.py: a python communications tool

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 17:16 -0700
    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 17:52 -0700
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 08:35 -0700
    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-04-05 21:07 -0400
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 18:13 -0700
      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 20:26 -0500
        Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 07:54 -0700
        Re: im.py: a python communications tool garabik-news-2005-05@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk - 2013-04-07 08:59 +0000
          Re: im.py: a python communications tool jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com - 2013-04-07 14:47 -0700
            Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-07 22:36 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 13:00 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 03:48 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:16 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-08 22:05 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 20:37 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 02:04 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 23:20 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 06:47 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 23:42 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 02:42 -0400
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:14 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 00:20 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 07:38 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:02 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 09:08 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:29 -0700
                        Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 13:05 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-12 12:57 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-04-12 20:05 +0000
                      RE: im.py: a python communications tool "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2013-04-12 21:48 +0000
                  RE: im.py: a python communications tool "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2013-04-12 19:46 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 17:21 +1000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 00:39 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 08:31 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:58 -0700
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-04-09 14:41 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 09:36 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 19:40 +1000
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 13:03 +0000
                      Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 23:23 +1000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 19:48 +1000
                    Re: im.py: a python communications tool Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 04:09 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:46 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-04-09 14:30 +0000
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 01:15 -0700
                Re: im.py: a python communications tool Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-04-09 08:45 +0000
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:00 -0700
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-04-09 05:18 -0400
                  Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 02:32 -0700
              Re: im.py: a python communications tool Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-04-09 17:10 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#42865 — im.py: a python communications tool

Hey Usenetites!
I have a horrible Python program to allow two people to chat with each
other.  It has horribly any functionality, but it is meant for the
public to work on, not necessarily me.  Anyways, here's a quick FAQ.

What does this do that IRC can't?  What does this do that AIM can't?
--It allows direct communication between two computers, whereas IRC
doesn't.  And AIM and similar services require a username, etc.  This
is made specifically for two users on a network to chat.
What version of Python is this written in?
--Python 2.7.3.
What is the licence?
--It's released under a special FOSS licence.  Here it is:
----You can do whatever you want with this program.

Alright, now, here's the code:

#!/usr/bin/python
#An instant messaging program implemented in Python.
#Created on Sunday, December 30, 2012 (long before it's Usenet
publication)

import socket
import sys
import threading

def server_listen():
	while True:
		r = c.recv(8192)

		if r == "\quit":
			c.close()
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		print con_addr[0], ": " + r

def client_listen():
	while True:
		r = s.recv(8192)

		if r == "\quit":
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		print sys.argv[1], ": " + r

s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)

if sys.argv[1] == "-l":
	s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
	s.bind(('', 5067))
	s.listen(5)
	c, con_addr = s.accept()

	while True:
		r = c.recv(8192)

		if r == "\quit":
			c.close()
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		print con_addr[0], ": " + r
		i = raw_input("You: ")

		if i == "\quit":
			c.send("\quit")
			c.close()
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		c.send(i)

else:
	s.connect((socket.gethostbyname(sys.argv[1]), 5067))
	print "Chat initiated with " + sys.argv[1] + "!"

	while True:
		i = raw_input("You: ")

		if i == "\quit":
			s.send("\quit")
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		s.send(i)
		r = s.recv(8192)

		if r == "\quit":
			s.close()
			sys.exit(0)

		print sys.argv[1] + ": " + r

I encourage people to modify this code, because really, it sucks.
Enjoy!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#42873

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Thanks for sharing some of your work with the community. However...

Speaking to the sharing aspect: Why would you post a block of code in an
email? If you're looking for people to contribute, it would likely be a
much better idea to post it on github (which was built for collaborative
work).

As for the code itself, if you /know/ it sucks and are advertising it as
such, you're not really enticing people to work on it. In its current
state, it looks like a non-extensible prototype, just poking around to see
how you can achieve a p2p connectivity, without doing /any/ research
(supporting modules, etc) or design before just starting to throw something
together.

I'd venture to say that the chances of actually getting anyone to
contribute to this in its current state (especially purely over a mailing
list) would be slim to none. People generally tend to want to see that
there's actually effort and thought put into something before they put
/their/ own time into it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42923

On Apr 5, 8:52 pm, Demian Brecht <demianbre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing some of your work with the community. However...
>
> Speaking to the sharing aspect: Why would you post a block of code in an
> email? If you're looking for people to contribute, it would likely be a
> much better idea to post it on github (which was built for collaborative
> work).
>
> As for the code itself, if you /know/ it sucks and are advertising it as
> such, you're not really enticing people to work on it. In its current
> state, it looks like a non-extensible prototype, just poking around to see
> how you can achieve a p2p connectivity, without doing /any/ research
> (supporting modules, etc) or design before just starting to throw something
> together.
>
> I'd venture to say that the chances of actually getting anyone to
> contribute to this in its current state (especially purely over a mailing
> list) would be slim to none. People generally tend to want to see that
> there's actually effort and thought put into something before they put
> /their/ own time into it.

Jeez, harsh.  I __am__ putting this on github, and I __am__ coming
back to this program and working on it now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42874

In article 
<bc3d27b1-fdf6-4931-bf11-38ac36a0f0b0@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the licence?
> --It's released under a special FOSS licence.  Here it is:
> ----You can do whatever you want with this program.

I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own 
licenses.  Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL, 
etc) licenses, and use that.

I used to work for a very large corporation.  The legal department was 
(quite reasonably) concerned about use of FOSS, and all open source 
software we used needed to pass legal review.

They were looking for two things.  First, that the license didn't 
obligate the company to anything it didn't want to be obligated to (i.e. 
they wouldn't allow GPL3).  Second, that YOU understood the terms of the 
license and had a plan in place to comply with all the requirements.

The lawyers knew all the major licenses.  If you showed up with 
something that was known (and acceptable) to them, the process was quick 
and (relatively) painless.  If you showed up with some license they had 
no experience with, they would go off into a huddle and not come out 
until they were sure they understood it.

The usual result was that anything that came with a one-off license was 
probably more trouble to get approved than it was worth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42875

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bc3d27b1-fdf6-4931-bf11-38ac36a0f0b0@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>  Jake D <jhunter.dunefsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the licence?
>> --It's released under a special FOSS licence.  Here it is:
>> ----You can do whatever you want with this program.
>
> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
> licenses.  Take your pick of any of the well-known (Berkeley, MIT, GPL,
> etc) licenses, and use that.  [...]

That all being said, and excellent policy and commentary in general,
no one should have trouble interpreting "do whatever you want with
it", legally or otherwise.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42876

On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own 
> licenses.
Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
-- 
CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42916

On Apr 5, 9:26 pm, Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own
> > licenses.
>
> Perhaps he meant this existing license:http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
> --
> CPython 3.3.0 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

Yep.  As a matter of fact, I did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42985

Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:
>> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own 
>> licenses.
> Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/

I like the Python Powered Logo license by Just van Rossum (Guido's
brother, in case someone doesn't know..)

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-December/013413.html

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__    garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk     |
 -----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43024

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:59:10 AM UTC-4, garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote:
> Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013.04.05 20:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> 
> >> I know this is off-topic, but I encourage people to NOT invent their own 
> 
> >> licenses.
> 
> > Perhaps he meant this existing license: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
> 
> 
> 
> I like the Python Powered Logo license by Just van Rossum (Guido's
> 
> brother, in case someone doesn't know..)
> 
> 
> 
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/1999-December/013413.html
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
> 
> | __..--^^^--..__    garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk     |
> 
>  -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
> 
> Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Actually, my current licence can be found here: https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think about this, Useneters?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43028

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:

> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
> about this, Useneters?


I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your 
software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently 
means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.

Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the 
MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?

E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT


Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people 
write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal 
boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I 
know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they 
want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"?

Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43033

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>
>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>> about this, Useneters?
>
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
> MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?
>
> E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Plus there's the whole brevity thing. If I see something that says
"MIT license", I don't need to read the details. Compare the README
for one of my projects:

https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/blob/master/README

(Actually, I need to update that; there are a few solved problems
listed there as still open.) You read "Licensed under the BSD Open
Source license" and then you can stop reading - you know what your
rights are. The lawyers at Roy Smith's company would have no trouble
comprehending this, and no trouble deciding whether or not it's
allowed - they either do or do not (there is no try).

License proliferation is actually a major problem. If I were to lift
code from your program and incorporate it into something GPL3, am I
violating either's terms? What if I want to put that code into
something BSD 2-clause? Am I allowed? At least if you use a well-known
license, I can do a quick web search, coming up with something like
[1], but a custom or unusual license would require careful analysis of
terms.

[1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43057

On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
> > Actually, my current licence can be found here:
> >https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
> > about this, Useneters?
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
> MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?
>
> E.g.http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>
> Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people
> write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal
> boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I
> know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they
> want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"?
>
> Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain.
>
> --
> Steven

MIT is actually the best one I've seen so far.  I'm updating LICENCE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43099

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>
>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>> about this, Useneters?
>
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.

Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
they never entered into an agreement, not did you.

Mark Janssen
Tacoma, Washington.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43104

On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>>> about this, Useneters?
>>
>>
>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>

That's a common misconception.  No prior agreement is necessary to 
institute a lawsuit, at least in the United States.  I'm not a lawyer, 
but I've been advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the 
likelihood that a lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee 
that a lawsuit cannot be filed and prosecuted.

Besides, an open-ended license might be acted on anywhere in the world, 
and who knows what some other jurisdictions might permit/require.


-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43109

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>>>> about this, Useneters?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>>
>>
>> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
>> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>>
>
> That's a common misconception.  No prior agreement is necessary to institute
> a lawsuit, at least in the United States.  I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
> advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
> lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
> be filed and prosecuted.

Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
offending me, for example.  The issue I was poorly raising is whether
such a case would have merit.  In the case of free (libre) open source
software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
promises anyone *anything*.  But someone would have to make the case
and "train" the court.  The court simply has not become appraised of
what free, libre, open source software is.  Really, one shouldn't be
so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
of the People.  If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
dies, the hospital must be held responsible, because the open source
developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43117

On 04/08/2013 11:37 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2013 07:16 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>>>>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>>>>> about this, Useneters?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
>>>> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
>>>> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Steven, they can't sue you for something they didn't pay for, because
>>> they never entered into an agreement, not did you.
>>>
>>
>> That's a common misconception.  No prior agreement is necessary to institute
>> a lawsuit, at least in the United States.  I'm not a lawyer, but I've been
>> advised that the best you can hope for is to minimize the likelihood that a
>> lawsuit will be successful, not to somehow guarantee that a lawsuit cannot
>> be filed and prosecuted.
>
> Clearly anyone can file a lawsuit, I could file one against you for
> offending me, for example.  The issue I was poorly raising is whether
> such a case would have merit.  In the case of free (libre) open source
> software, such a case would have no merit, because such software never
> promises anyone *anything*.

I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs 
up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing 
to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a 
warning sign.  Especially if "I" am a company.  And especially if I have 
an "attractive nuisance" around.  There are lots of implied agreements 
that have been successfully used by the opposing lawyers.

   But someone would have to make the case
> and "train" the court.  The court simply has not become appraised of
> what free, libre, open source software is.

Now you're assuming that there is such a definition, and that the court 
could be convinced to follow your interpretation.  I claim that no 
amateur should try to word his own agreement.  Either get an expert to 
help, or refer to an agreement that was prepared by such experts.  Don't 
make the assumption that because something is free, it's somehow immune 
from liability.

I expect it's safer to have no agreement at all, than to have one that 
gives away privileges without explicitly declaring or disclaiming any 
responsibilities.

>  Really, one shouldn't be
> so afraid of such things and intimidated of our own system of law --
> this is why the republic has degraded to lawyers, not representatives
> of the People.  If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
> dies, the hospital must be

No, *should* *be*

> held responsible, because the open source
> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> Mark
>
>


-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43121

> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs up
> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the
> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign.

No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.  By
propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.

This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
land.  People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
propagated earlier.  We're not victims here.  The story of a burglar
suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
somewhere in the judicial system.  It should not be considered case
history or "de facto" law and left at that.

>>   If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
>> dies, the hospital must be
>
> No, *should* *be*
>
>> held responsible, because the open source
>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.

(re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer.  Like the sheriff
says:  "I make the law around here!"  lol.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43125

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:20:54 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs
>> up my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes
>> crashing to the ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not
>> having a warning sign.
> 
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.

Which Constitution is that? The Russian Constitution? Italian? Japanese? 
Brazilian? New Zealand? Serbian? South African?


> By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims to
> our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our own
> negligence, and frankly, pessimism.
> 
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of the
> Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the land. 

Speak for yourself. Not everyone here is a Yankie.


> People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to continually
> be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being propagated
> earlier.  We're not victims here.  The story of a burglar suing a
> homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, 

Maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant. We're not talking about somebody 
breaking into your home to steal your DVD, and on the way in, being 
injured by your software. We're talking about somebody using your 
software, *with your explicit permission*, and then having it cause them 
harm by being unfit for the purpose advertised.

If you don't disclaim warranty, and even sometimes if you do, there is an 
implicit warranty that your goods will be fit for their purpose in many 
jurisdictions. In some places that may only apply if money changes hands; 
in other places it will apply regardless.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43123

We're /definitely/ on topic for this list.

Just saying.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs up
>> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the
>> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign.
>
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.  By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
> to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
> own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.
>
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
> the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
> land.  People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
> continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
> propagated earlier.  We're not victims here.  The story of a burglar
> suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
> somewhere in the judicial system.  It should not be considered case
> history or "de facto" law and left at that.
>
>>>   If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
>>> dies, the hospital must be
>>
>> No, *should* *be*
>>
>>> held responsible, because the open source
>>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
>>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
> the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer.  Like the sheriff
> says:  "I make the law around here!"  lol.
>
> Mark
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list



-- 
Demian Brecht
http://demianbrecht.github.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43124

On 04/09/2013 02:20 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> I'm not a lawyer, and I suspect you're not either.  If a burglar climbs up
>> my trellis to try to attain a second floor window, and comes crashing to the
>> ground, he may very well successfully sue me for not having a warning sign.
>
> No, I understand these cases are common lore, but it's this bullshit
> which is ruining everything that was balanced by the Constitution.  By
> propagating such ideas, it continues the idea that we're all victims
> to our own system of law, but we are the tacit *creators* of it by our
> own negligence, and frankly, pessimism.

I like to be pessimistic when signing the documents that might ruin my 
own future.  In my last job, I told the company lawyers I would not 
accept the NDA as they supplied it, and they claimed I was the first one 
to successfully force a new version.  As HR put it, most people don't 
even read it, they figure it's a requirement to work.

>
> This is a system of, by and for the People -- those are the words of
> the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law of the
> land.  People need to fight this "enabler" creep, that allows it to
> continually be co-opted by fear-story, like the one that was being
> propagated earlier.  We're not victims here.  The story of a burglar
> suing a homeowner is either urban myth and a hoax, or a gross default
> somewhere in the judicial system.  It should not be considered case
> history or "de facto" law and left at that.
>
>>>    If a hospital takes your open source code and someone
>>> dies, the hospital must be
>>
>> No, *should* *be*
>>
>>> held responsible, because the open source
>>> developer is not posing as an expert of anything, nor has she made it
>>> for some explicit purpose for you like in a commercial agreement.
>
> (re: must vs. should) Legally, you are right, but I was speaking from
> the point of view of a judge, rather than a lawyer.  Like the sheriff
> says:  "I make the law around here!"  lol.
>

I can't really argue your points, and once a challenge is made, I'm 
thoroughly in agreement.  But it's much easier to keep things clear from 
the beginning, and I've been assuming our job here was to advise the OP 
on whether his plan for a license agreement is good.   Years ago I 
managed to get our company lawyers to approve the use of "free" software 
for internal use, but getting the custom license agreement past them was 
like pulling teeth.


-- 
DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web