[SciPy-User] ANN: graph-tool, a package for graph analysis and manipulation

Tiago de Paula Peixoto tiago@forked...
Thu Dec 3 10:11:43 CST 2009

On 12/03/2009 04:07 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> On 10/22/2009 03:46 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> So is the idea, in contrast say to NetworkX,
>>> that graph-tool wraps the Boost Graph Library?
>>> If so, why is the license more restrictive
>>> than the BGL?
> On 12/3/2009 9:29 AM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto wrote:
>> Why shouldn't it? If the BGL developers wanted to avoid this, they would
>> have used another licence.
> Yes of course the BGL developers allowed this freedom.
> My question is, when you are leaning so heavily on
> the BGL, why don't you feel some inclination to
> follow their generous lead and continue with the
> less restrictive licensing they adopted?

Less restrictive in this case means simply less restrictive to people
who want to impose additional restrictions. :-) In other words, the BGL
license allows proprietary derivatives, while the GPL doesn't. I find it
quite strange that you consider this not as generous, since the only
thing it does is to prohibit _even more_ strong restrictions. I have the
feeling you would not criticize quite as much, if I had made the library
proprietary... How generous would that be?

> On 12/3/2009 9:29 AM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto wrote:
>> As for my own stuff, I prefer the GPL, to
>> avoid additional restrictions.
> I do not understand.  As this conversation makes clear,
> the GPL is the *source* of the additional restrictions.
> Which of course is why I asked: such restrictive licensing
> makes the code useless for many on this list.
> Naturally (!!), each of us should choose the license we find
> appropriate.  I only bothered to ask since you posted this
> to a list for software that is committed to liberal licensing,
> *not* to the restrictions of the GPL, and I have found that many
> people pick the GPL by default rather than thinking through
> the implications.

This is an age-old debate about copyleft vs non-copyleft... Maybe it's
not so useful to re-hash it now, but don't assume that those who choose
copyleft do so for lack of information.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/attachments/20091203/d8c5f1e1/attachment.bin 

More information about the SciPy-User mailing list