License state

[Ivan R. Judson]

Yeah, that's the wxWindows license, I found 3 of those in the wxPython
source :-).  I'm wondering what the wxPython license is...

Thanks,

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susanne Lefvert [mailto:lefvert at mcs.anl.gov] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 9:17 AM
> To: Ivan R. Judson
> Cc: ag-dev at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: License state
> 
> 
> 
> I found the attached license file in my copy of 
> wxPythonSrc-2.3.3.1/docs. 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Ivan R. Judson wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > I'm just doing another pass at making sure out copyrights/license 
> > state are correct in prep for final. This is the list of 
> software we 
> > require, that I came up with:
> > 
> > License state:
> > 
> >  - Python 2.2 -- OSF, GPL Compatible, no copyleft
> >  - wxWindows -- LGPL (libraries), BSD (documentation), GPL (?)
> >  - wxGTK -- ?
> >  - wxPython -- ?
> >  - Logging -- BSD-style
> >  - pyIPC - LGPL
> >  - pyOpenSSL - LGPL
> >  - Globus - BSD-derived
> >  - pyGlobus - BSD-derived
> >  - rat - BSD-style
> >  - vic - BSD-style
> >  - OpenMASH - BSD
> > 
> > Questions I think we have to tackle:
> > 
> > What's missing?
> > 
> > What gets packaged up as AGTk and what's packaged as pre-requisite?
> > 
> > My goal would be to be minimize constraining licenses (GPL/LGPL) in 
> > favor of more open BSD style licenses. However, it would 
> appear some 
> > of our choices will make that difficult :-).
> > 
> > If we can be sure that anything packaged as part of the 
> actual AGTk is 
> > AGTkPL compatible (aka BSD compatible) that'd be ideal. Then the 
> > possible pre-requisite software bundle can have it's own licensing.
> > 
> > I'm assuming at some level two packages per platform 1) 
> prerequisite 
> > stuff (but specific to AGTk) and 2) AGTk and related stuff.  Let me 
> > know if that makes sense or if you have other opinions.
> > 
> > --Ivan
> > 
> > PS -- if anyone can verify the licensing of wxPython and 
> wxGTK that'd 
> > be great.
> > 
> > 
> > 
>