isn't this redundant with https://launchpad.net/deferred ?

[Glyph Lefkowitz]

If the point of this package is to be Deferred without the dependency on Twisted, the 'deferred' module does that already, but is 100% API-compatible with Twisted's Deferred instead of being slightly different in a bunch of ways. Phasing out this package would allow future performance enhancements to Deferred to propagate more easily.

[Andy de Cleyre (andydecleyre)]

python-defer is functional in Python 3, I'm not sure if deferred is.

[Glyph Lefkowitz (glyph)]

That seems like a bug which ought to be filed against Deferred, perhaps with a merge proposal, not a motivation for an entirely new codebase.

[Marc Schlaich (ms4py)]

While I like this functionality with a more pythonic API (regarding PEP-8), but the problem is the relicensing under the permissive GPL license without attribution of the original license and authors! This is not allowed.

Either you have to license it under MIT, too or you have to make it dual licensed where the original MIT parts (which is almost everything I assume) must be clearly stated. See: http://stackoverflow.com/a/4036001/851737

[Glyph Lefkowitz (glyph)]

Marc makes a good point. Perusing the code, it seems clear that this is a derivative work of Twisted's Deferred, but it doesn't incorporate the original license (as required by the license). You even specifically say in the description it is a "version" of "Twisted's defer". So I think you are, if not violating the license outright, in a very grey area.

Plus, don't take something that's MIT and make it GPL. Just because it's legally allowed doesn't mean it's polite.

Plus, Twisted's Deferred now supports python 3; the release that adds this functionality has just been published as a release candidate. You can see the tests running here: <http://buildbot.twistedmatrix.com/builders/python-3.3-tests/builds/303/steps/shell_1/logs/stdio>. <https://launchpad.net/deferred> does need to be updated to incorporate a few changes, but that is a small update.

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini (ljl)]

I never really care for arguments that something shouldn't be done under a license even though it's allowed by that license because in some community sense it's not "polite".
Licenses exist to state in legally exact term what the author wants and doesn't want to happen to their work; if they didn't want something to happen, then they had the option of using a license that disallowed that.
So, arbitrarily picking certain types of allowed usage under a license as "impolite" is an indirect way to undermine the freedoms granted by the license itself, which is one of the main point of free software.

That said, if this apparently derivative work actually does legally violate the original license, then that should be fixed.