Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > examples of realistic multiprocessing usage?

Reply
Thread Tools

examples of realistic multiprocessing usage?

 
 
Albert van der Horst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Philip Semanchuk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<SNIP>

>I grepped through the code to see that it's using =
>multiprocessing.Listener. I didn't go any further than that because our =
>project is BSD licensed and the license for Gluino is unclear. Until I =
>find out whether or not its under an equally permissive license, I can't =
>borrow ideas and/or code from it.


You have been brain washed by the Intellectual Properties congsy.
Of course you can read through code to borrow idea's from it.

>Hope it's of some help to you, though.
>
>Cheers
>Philip=



--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Albert van der Horst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Adam Tauno Williams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:55 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Philip Semanchuk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> >I grepped through the code to see that it's using =
>> >multiprocessing.Listener. I didn't go any further than that because our =
>> >project is BSD licensed and the license for Gluino is unclear. Until I =
>> >find out whether or not its under an equally permissive license, I can't =
>> >borrow ideas and/or code from it.

>> You have been brain washed by the Intellectual Properties congsy.
>> Of course you can read through code to borrow idea's from it.

>
>I wouldn't; and there is no brain-washing.
>
>It is very unwise to look at GPL'd code if you are working on a non-GPL
>project; the GPL is specifically and intentionally viral. The
>distinction between reading-through-code-and-borrowing-ideas and
>copying-code is thin and best left to lawyers.


This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.
GPL-ers are not keen on getting the most monetary award by
setting lawyers on you and go to court only reluctantly to
enforce the license.

>
>Aside: Comments to the contrary often stand-on-their-head to make such
>cases. For example:
>
>"You do have a choice under the GPL license: you can stop using the
>stolen code and write your own, or you can decide you'd rather release
>under the GPL. But the choice is yours. If you say, I choose neither,
>then the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further
>distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL. ...
>Of course, you could avoid all such troubles in the first place by not
>stealing GPL code to begin with"
><http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851>


Stealing code means just that, verbatim copies. When you read this
carefully, you can see that reimplementing the stolen code is
an option. Exactly what you say is legally impossible.

It doesn't say:
"you can stop using the stolen code, and now you're forever
banned from writing your own, since you have seen our code"

>
>Seriously? What that basically means is you can't use GPL'd code in a
>non-GPL'd product/project. Saying if you do it is OK, but you'll be
>required to replace the code or change your license is
>standing-on-ones-head. Risking a forced reimplementation of a core
>component of an existing application is 'just nuts'.


GPL-code is protected under *copyright law*, not patents or some
such. That means that reimplementing idea's is okay.
That is one of the things GPL tries to protect.
Also we recognize the fact that the wheel is reinvented all the time
and that there are a limited number of solutions to a problem.
You could easily have come up with the same idea as me.

Then you overlook another possibility. I have a lot of GPL-ed code
on my site. If you want to use some of it commercially, you
could contact me and negotiate a non-GPL license. You might be
surprised how easy I'm on you, as long as you recognize where
the code comes from. If you want to use it BSD-licensed, I
would be even more lenient (unless strategic issues are at
stake.)

So pardon me, but not even looking at code you might learn from
is pretty hysteric.

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Adam Skutt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011
On Jan 20, 11:51*pm, Albert van der Horst <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>
wrote:
> This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
> GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.


Doesn't matter, you're still legally liable if your work is found to
be derivative and lacking a fair use defense. It's not borrowing
"ideas" that's problematic, it's proving that's all you did. For
those of us with legal departments, we have no choice: if they don't
believe we can prove our case, we're not using the code, period. The
risk simply isn't worth it.

> GPL-ers are not keen on getting the most monetary award by
> setting lawyers on you and go to court only reluctantly to
> enforce the license.


And? Monetary award is hardly the only issue.

> Stealing code means just that, verbatim copies. When you read this
> carefully, you can see that reimplementing the stolen code is
> an option. Exactly what you say is legally impossible.


No, in the United States it means anything that constitutes a
derivative work, since derivative works of GPL-licensed works must be
released under the GPL. Merely copying ideas does not make one a
derivative work, but one also must be prepared to show that's all that
happened. As such, it would have to be a substantially different
implementation, generally with some sort of added or useful value.
Proving that can be difficult and may very well depend on what court
you land in.

>
> So pardon me, but not even looking at code you might learn from
> is pretty hysteric.


Not at all. Separating ideas from implementation can be difficult,
and convincing a judge of that vastly more so. It's a legitimate
concern, and people who intend to ship proprietary software should
definitely resort to GPL-licensed software last when looking for
inspiration.

Adam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adam Tauno Williams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 03:20 -0800, Adam Skutt wrote:
> On Jan 20, 11:51 pm, Albert van der Horst <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>
> wrote:
> > This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
> > GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.

> Doesn't matter, you're still legally liable if your work is found to
> be derivative and lacking a fair use defense. It's not borrowing
> "ideas" that's problematic, it's proving that's all you did. For
> those of us with legal departments, we have no choice: if they don't
> believe we can prove our case, we're not using the code, period. The
> risk simply isn't worth it.


+1, exactly. "reimplementation" is the defense of GPL is very often
treated as *trivial*. Changing function names and variable names and
indenting style is not "reimplementation". Reimplementation can be very
difficult, time consuming, and error-prone.

Anyway, legally define: "reimplementation". Have fun.

> > So pardon me, but not even looking at code you might learn from
> > is pretty hysteric.

> Not at all. Separating ideas from implementation can be difficult,


Honestly, IMNSHO, it is borders on *impossible*. Even statistical
analysis of written prose or off-hand speech will reveal how
pathologically derivative humans are in their use of language. And as
that language gets forcibly more structured as in programming or
technical documentation even more so.

> and convincing a judge of that vastly more so. It's a legitimate
> concern, and people who intend to ship proprietary software should
> definitely resort to GPL-licensed software last when looking for
> inspiration.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Stromberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Adam Skutt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 11:51*pm, Albert van der Horst <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>
> wrote:
>> This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
>> GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.

>
> Doesn't matter, you're still legally liable if your work is found to
> be derivative and lacking a fair use defense. *It's not borrowing
> "ideas" that's problematic, it's proving that's all you did. *For
> those of us with legal departments, we have no choice: if they don't
> believe we can prove our case, we're not using the code, period. *The
> risk simply isn't worth it.


Many legal departments have an overblown sense of risk, I'm afraid.
And I suppose that's somewhat natural, as it's mostly the legal people
who are putting their necks on the line over such issues - though I
wouldn't be surprised to see a disciplinary action or even firing of a
techie over same.

I worked at DATAllegro when it was acquired by Microsoft. The
DATAllegro product had significant portions that were opensource code;
Microsoft, of course, decided that they needed to "quarantine"
(meaning "eliminate", in a weird, half-way sense) the opensource
portions.

Why did Microsoft do this? Why knowingly go through with the purchase
of a product that had large opensource parts? Why was what they did
considered "enough" as part of a complex due diligence process, to
satisfy even Microsoft's copyright-extensionist lawyers?

When I say "copyright extensionist", I mean:
1) Their legal department once told me that a small python module
could not just be rewritten under a different license, legally,
because a small module could not be made different enough to avoid
issues.
2) Their onboarding process literally said "don't look at example code
in programming books - it entails a legal risk for the company."

What made them think DATAllegro's purchase price was still worth it,
despite this perspective on copyright?

I don't know; I have no first-hand knowledge of that process, though
ironically I did help quarantine the "offending" code. But obviously
Microsoft management, their board and their lawyers felt it was worth
the risk at the price. I know it had something to do with contracting
out to a 3rd party company to assess the risk and ascertain what
portions "required" excising.

Here's one such company: http://www.blackducksoftware.com/black-duck-suite
A former coworker (not of Microsoft) suggested they were the only
company in this business. I believe Black Duck has software that
automatically detects opensource code in a body of work.

IOW, it's quite possible to demonstrate that something isn't a
derivative work, enough so to make even Microsoft's lawyers happy,
given adequate funding for the purpose.

So yeah, sometimes a programmer peeking at opensource code might be
more of a risk (== expense) than a closed-source company is willing to
take, but so might studying a book intended to help you learn
programming. And how many programmers haven't studied a programming
book at some time in their life?

My intuition tells me (I'm not going into details - that feels too
dangerous to me personally) that part of the issue Microsoft was
trying to prevent, wasn't so much a matter of copyright safety, as
trying to avoid being called hypocritical; they've made a lot of noise
about how dangerous opensource is. If they then turn around and
distribute opensource code artifacts as part of a Microsoft product,
then they'll probably eventually get beaten up in the tech press yet
again over the new matter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip Semanchuk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011

On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Adam Skutt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 11:51 pm, Albert van der Horst <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
>>> GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.

>>
>> Doesn't matter, you're still legally liable if your work is found to
>> be derivative and lacking a fair use defense. It's not borrowing
>> "ideas" that's problematic, it's proving that's all you did. For
>> those of us with legal departments, we have no choice: if they don't
>> believe we can prove our case, we're not using the code, period. The
>> risk simply isn't worth it.

>
> Many legal departments have an overblown sense of risk, I'm afraid.


I carefully avoid GPLed code on our BSD-licensed project not because I need fear anyone's legal department, but out of respect for the author(s) of the GPL-ed code. The way I see it, the author of GPL-ed code gives away something valuable and asks for just one thing in return: respect the license. It strikes me as very selfish to deny them the one thing they ask for.

JMHO,
Philip
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Stromberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2011
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Philip Semanchuk <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Adam Skutt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 11:51 pm, Albert van der Horst <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This is what some people want you to believe. Arm twisting by
>>>> GPL-ers when you borrow their ideas? That is really unheard of.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter, you're still legally liable if your work is found to
>>> be derivative and lacking a fair use defense. *It's not borrowing
>>> "ideas" that's problematic, it's proving that's all you did. *For
>>> those of us with legal departments, we have no choice: if they don't
>>> believe we can prove our case, we're not using the code, period. *The
>>> risk simply isn't worth it.

>>
>> Many legal departments have an overblown sense of risk, I'm afraid.

>
> I carefully avoid GPLed code on our BSD-licensed project not because I need fear anyone's legal department, but out of respect for the author(s) of the GPL-ed code. The way I see it, the author of GPL-ed code gives away something valuable and asks for just one thing in return: respect the license. It strikes me as very selfish to deny them the one thing they ask for.


That's very considerate, and yet, I think there are multiple senses of
the word "avoid" above.

If you're avoiding inspecting GPL'd code for ideas, I think if you ask
most authors of GPL'd code, they'd be more than happy to allow you to.
I've released GPL'd code quite a few times, and personally, I'm
flattered when others want to look it over.

If you're avoiding cutting and pasting from (or linking against) GPL'd
code into something that isn't GPL-licensed, then that's very
sensible.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are 22 megapixel APS-C sensors realistic? mexican_equivalent@yahoo.com Digital Photography 43 09-05-2006 12:48 PM
[Realistic] specs for Visual Studio 2005 Mantorok ASP .Net 3 07-12-2006 03:15 PM
Finally something realistic on CSI bob Digital Photography 1 02-19-2005 11:21 PM
Decentralized web site: Realistic? (Pete Cresswell) HTML 7 12-05-2004 02:10 PM
Pentax *st DS : Realistic release date? Spanyardo Digital Photography 8 11-21-2004 08:40 AM



Advertisments