more demos of mpl with wxPython

For those who may be interested:
I plan to use mpl for some serious plotting in my programs featuring
wxPython GUIs. To get started, I've written a couple of non-trivial demos
with mpl and wxPython and posted them online (code and all).
http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/

It is my hope that others will find this code useful. And if you have any
corrections, insights or general comments, please let me know.

Eli

···

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18770262.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Cool demos: short and to the point.
Alan
PS Even though these are just short demos,
please include a software license.
Otherwise some people will hesitate to
even look at them.

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/

Alan G Isaac wrote:

http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/08/01/matplotlib-with-wxpython-guis/

Cool demos: short and to the point.
Alan
PS Even though these are just short demos,
please include a software license.
Otherwise some people will hesitate to
even look at them.

On my website it says that all code is LGPL, unless stated otherwise. But
you're probably right and it makes sense to add a license to each file. So I
added it in the comment at the top.

Interesting. I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code from a
demo because of a lack of license.

Eli

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18778255.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license".
I think what most people (myself included) would
like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public
domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly
means "use this however you want without worrying about
any restrictions, not even attribution requirements".

I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally)
for such scripts:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

If public domain is uncomfortable,
then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable.
<URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html>

Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code
from a demo because of a lack of license.

Alan G Isaac wrote:

I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code
from a demo because of a lack of license.

It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license".
I think what most people (myself included) would
like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public
domain". That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly
means "use this however you want without worrying about
any restrictions, not even attribution requirements".

I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally)
for such scripts:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

If public domain is uncomfortable,
then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable.
<URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html>

Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac

Although we're markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I've battled
with the question of licensing my code. It's documented here:
http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/

The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free software,
and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown
libraries, but still...

Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code
work. He got it for free, because I've placed my demo publicly online. But
he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how he
does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This
isn't fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to use
the code in commercial applications.

Eli

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

It is not the case that everything that is "code" needs
a common license. You may wish to read
http://www.scipy.org/License_Compatibility
Or not. :wink:
But I find John very persuasive. (All the more
so given what he has contributed.)

Last comment: as someone who teaches, I give away
useful knowledge all the time, without conditions.
This probably shapes my view about what constitutes
appropriate "sharing" of simple scripts,
since I see this as a part of teaching.
(Also, as a valuable part of the Python culture.)

Cheers,
Alan Isaac

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/

Alan G Isaac wrote:

I wouldn’t imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code

from a demo because of a lack of license.

It depends on what you mean by “lack of a license”.

I think what most people (myself included) would

like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public

domain". That is not exactly a “license”, but it roughly

means "use this however you want without worrying about

any restrictions, not even attribution requirements".

I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally)

for such scripts:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

If public domain is uncomfortable,

then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable.

URL:[http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)

Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license.

Cheers,

Alan Isaac

Although we’re markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I’ve battled

with the question of licensing my code. It’s documented here:

http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/

The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free software,

and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown

libraries, but still…

Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code

work. He got it for free, because I’ve placed my demo publicly online. But

he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how he

does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This

isn’t fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to use

the code in commercial applications.

My understanding of what can and cannot be licensed, at least in U.S. law and (as far as I know) some other areas as well, is that what you are trying to guard is something you cannot guard unless you get a patent.

The specific text of a program, its concrete form, and perhaps other “concrete implementation” features are covered (or at least can be covered) by copyright.

Knowledge, including “how he does the thing the demo taught him,” is not subject to copyright. That is, if he legally reads your code, and clones functionality, there is no way barring a software patent that you can restrict this.

I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the copyright says, “Don’t build on or extend this unless you want your work to be covered by my chosen license,” I will be extremely cautious about building off of them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of your demos into my own 2000 line program, your requirements of fairness require me to place my entire 2000 line program under the terms of the license you chose.

This is a significant deterrent to some programmers.

···

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, eliben <eliben@…287…> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

Eli

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html

Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer’s challenge

Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes

Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world

http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/


Matplotlib-users mailing list

Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users


– Jonathan Hayward, christos.jonathan.hayward@…287…

** To see an award-winning website with stories, essays, artwork,

** games, and a four-dimensional maze, why not visit my home page?
** All of this is waiting for you at http://JonathansCorner.com

++ Would you like to curl up with one of my hardcover books?

++ You can now get my books from http://CJSHayward.com

Alan G Isaac wrote:

I wouldn’t imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code

from a demo because of a lack of license.

It depends on what you mean by “lack of a license”.

I think what most people (myself included) would

like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public

domain". That is not exactly a “license”, but it roughly

means "use this however you want without worrying about

any restrictions, not even attribution requirements".

I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally)

for such scripts:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

If public domain is uncomfortable,

then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable.

URL:[http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html](http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)

Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license.

Cheers,

Alan Isaac

Although we’re markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I’ve battled

with the question of licensing my code. It’s documented here:

http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/

The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free software,

and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown

libraries, but still…

Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code

work. He got it for free, because I’ve placed my demo publicly online. But

he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how he

does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This

isn’t fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to use

the code in commercial applications.

My understanding of what can and cannot be licensed, at least in U.S.
law and (as far as I know) some other areas as well, is that what you
are trying to guard is something you cannot guard unless you get a
patent.

The specific text of a program, its concrete form, and perhaps
other “concrete implementation” features are covered (or at least can
be covered) by copyright.

Knowledge, including “how he does the
thing the demo taught him,” is not subject to copyright. That is, if he
legally reads your code, and clones functionality, there is no way
barring a software patent that you can restrict this.

I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the
copyright says, “Don’t build on or extend this unless you want your
work to be covered by my chosen license,” I will be extremely cautious
about building off of them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of
your demos into my own 2000 line program, your requirements of fairness
require me to place my entire 2000 line program under the terms of the
license you chose.

This is a significant deterrent to some programmers.

···

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM, eliben <eliben@…287…> wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

Eli

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html

Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer’s challenge

Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes

Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world

http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/


Matplotlib-users mailing list

Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users


– Jonathan Hayward, christos.jonathan.hayward@…287…

** To see an award-winning website with stories, essays, artwork,

** games, and a four-dimensional maze, why not visit my home page?
** All of this is waiting for you at http://JonathansCorner.com

++ Would you like to curl up with one of my hardcover books?

++ You can now get my books from http://CJSHayward.com

JonathansCorner.com wrote:

I personally regard viral licenses with caution: that is, if the copyright
says, "Don't build on or extend this unless you want your work to be
covered
by my chosen license," I will be extremely cautious about building off of
them. Under the LGPV, if I incorporate one of your demos into my own 2000
line program, your requirements of fairness require me to place my entire
2000 line program under the terms of the license you chose.

This is a significant deterrent to some programmers.

I think you're mixing up GPL and LGPL here. LGPL was born especially for the
purpose of being copyleft but not viral. With LGPL, if you link my module
into your code, you won't have to release your code, only my module's. With
GPL, you'd have to open both.

While http://www.scipy.org/License_Compatibility is convincing, it also
speaks about GPL in this manner, giving LGPL only a short after-thought in
the end.

I will however consider lowering the license bar for my demo code, since it
relies too much on BSD-licensed MPL stuff.

Eli

···

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18786128.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I read Jonathan's point as being: there is no such
"linking" possibility with such demo scripts.
This indeed is why I questioned the relevance of
the LGPL for such things, earlier on, even though
the LGPL is in principle (and often in practice)
a much more user friendly license than the GPL.

Again, not all code needs the same license,
and simple scripts seem (to me) to beg to
be placed in the public domain.

But of course the key rule is always:
s/he who holds the copyright picks the license.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac

···

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:

if you link my module into your code, you won't have to
release your code,

Alan G Isaac wrote:

I read Jonathan's point as being: there is no such
"linking" possibility with such demo scripts.
This indeed is why I questioned the relevance of
the LGPL for such things, earlier on, even though
the LGPL is in principle (and often in practice)
a much more user friendly license than the GPL.

I agree. So, I've modified the license of the demos to "public domain".

Thanks for the interesting discussion

Eli

···

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18786329.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.