Quote from: LouisCyphre on September 06, 2012, 12:28 amQuote from: sickgirl on September 05, 2012, 08:07 pmAm I missing something here? This piece of software is released under the GPL, which means that the source code is readily accessible, Cannot be licensed under GPL otherwise.Exactly! Also, I figured that using any other license wouldn't matter if others who receive the code release it anyway, so I selected a license that guarantees other changes be able to be released.I didn't choose the GPL Affero v3 because that would require publicly releasing every version, including customised ones for specific clients. For example, the version currently available is version 1.1, but version 1.0 doesn't have the code for handling plain text orders only because the vendor who initially contacted me cancels unencrypted orders.Obviously the GPLv3 does not prevent selling code released under that license. Without going into specifics, I've discussed this with RMS face-to-face, but all this can be confirmed from the Free Software Foundation.The GPLv3 simply grants certain rights to users and the obligation that the source be made available with the distribution. Since the distribution *is* the source code (Python executables are great like that), then that obligation is covered.What a complete red herring this is. It wouldn't matter if Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates both signed off on the deal :DI admit I didn't notice what particular "license" was being used. And it doesn't matter one fucking jot because source doesn't need be closed in order to contain or be connected to some exploit. It just needs not enough people to be observant enough to catch it in time. That's all it requires. Surely people don't expect that LouisCyphre expected us to be having this discussion...? In his view, a bunch of vendors should have just run his half a dozen or so files without a single quibble.QuoteQuote from: LouisCyphre on September 06, 2012, 12:41 amQuote from: kmfkewm on September 05, 2012, 08:24 pmis it even possible to make python programs closed source? What is it, bytecode?No, it's just .py and .sh scripts which are executable. The closed source claim is a red herring to back up the LE false assumption.Quote from: LouisCyphre on September 06, 2012, 02:06 amQuote from: spacecase #2 on September 06, 2012, 01:25 am^because pine is le, been trying to tell you guys that.You're welcome to your opinion, but please hold off on the accusations without proof.Now you see it, now you don't. Interesting.