[ANN]PyCrash 0.2 released

[Carmine Noviello]

Hi,
a new version of PyCrash is released with some bug fixes done. You can
download it at



https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=98026&package_id=105002

Enjoy!
_______________________________________________________________________
About PyCrash Project:
PyCrash is a crash handler that handles uncaught exceptions during
program execution and collects information about the program context.
PyCrash can be very useful in report bug information, because the
programmer can easily analyse the program execution context of the
crashed application.

Major information collected by PyCrash in the crash dump is:

- Information about operating system, Python and Python Standard
Library version and general information about the program that is
crashed (e.g., program name and version, time at witch program
started and ended, and so on)

- Information about the uncaught exceptions, like the exception type,
the context (namely method name) in which the exception occurred and
the exception value

- General information about variables state

- Information about the stack of each thread, like the list of stack
frames, the variables value in each stack frame, and so on

- General information about source code, like variable and function
position in source file that can be useful for the programmer to find
quickly bugs in source tree

The format of the crash dump file generated by PyCrash is XML, so the
programmer can easily read this file to understand why the program is
crashed.

Now, is also available a GUI browser, named PyCrashViewer, which allows
developers to analyze quickly and easily PyCrash crash dump files in a
graphical manner.

Next version of PyCrash will include at least these features:

- Full support to new-style classes
- Cryptographic functionalities, which allow programmers to cypher crash
dump in order to protected sensible information in crash files.

More information can be found at:

http://pycrash.sourceforge.net

I'm very pleased to receive your comments and suggests.

Thanks!

 

[max khesin]

Sounds great but... Why GPL (and not python)? It will prevent a lot of
us working grunts from using the module in the Commanie's code... And we
want MORE python!
my 0.5c

 

[Carmine Noviello]

Sounds great but... Why GPL (and not python)? It will prevent a lot of

us working grunts from using the module in the Commanie's code... And we
want MORE python!
my 0.5c

I have chosen the GPL without any special reason: I know it and so I
simply used it. I’m not a license expert: I write code, no contracts.
However, my major intent is to contribute to python community with this
tool: so, if the type of licence can be a problem for the end-user I’m
ready to change it in the future.

Bye

 

[max khesin]

I have chosen the GPL without any special reason: I know it and so I
simply used it. I’m not a license expert: I write code, no contracts.
However, my major intent is to contribute to python community with this
tool: so, if the type of licence can be a problem for the end-user I’m
ready to change it in the future.

Bye

GPL license has a two-fold agenda (whether you like it or not):
- to protect the developer from liability (with our crazy lawers it is
necessary for to protect yourself from some idiot misusing your generous
contribution)
- (this is a political-socioeconomic one) to spread GPL virally into
code that uses it to achieve world peace, prosperity and whatever in the
way Richard Stallman envisions it. This is a complicated issue, and I
personally prefer to avoid commiting my code to this vision without
fully understanding the implications. What it basically means to me is
that I cannot use your code at work, which is annoying.

An easy solution for you is to specify Python license with your code.
(And I would be personally grateful)

thanks,
max

 

[Carmine Noviello]

An easy solution for you is to specify Python license with your code.

(And I would be personally grateful)

thanks,
max

Ok, I'll take this in consideration for future releases of PyCrash.

 

[Gerrit]

I have chosen the GPL without any special reason: I know it and so I
simply used it.

You may want to use LGPL for libraries.

Don't know how difficult changing a license is, though.

Gerrit.

 

[Carmine Noviello]

Don't know how difficult changing a license is, though.

Why?

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Why?

If you are the only developer, its no deal. But as in the GPL and other
licenses the copyright of code remains by the actualy contributor, you have
to ensure that all contributers agree with a license change.

 

[max khesin]

It looks like there is only one contributor.

Carmine Noviello wrote:




If you are the only developer, its no deal. But as in the GPL and other
licenses the copyright of code remains by the actualy contributor, you have
to ensure that all contributers agree with a license change.

 

[Jeremy Fincher]

What it basically means to me is
that I cannot use your code at work, which is annoying.

Keep in mind that the GPL only applies to distribution, not to use.
If you're just doing in-house development with PyCrash, you aren't
bound by the terms of the GPL.

Jeremy

 

[Chris Stiles]

Without wishing to develop this into an idealogical debate.

- (this is a political-socioeconomic one) to spread GPL virally into
code that uses it to achieve world peace, prosperity and

Albeit a virus one has to go out of one's way to catch.

whatever in the way Richard Stallman envisions it.

Only if you include the 'under this license or future versions of the GPL'
clause. Otherwise, he has exactly the same rights under the license as anyone
else.

An easy solution for you is to specify Python license with your
code. (And I would be personally grateful)

Or specify that it can be used under either the Python license or the GPL.
In any case, the rights for the author to re-license his work at any
point remains the same.

 

[Paul Boddie]

How does it prevent people using it? My impression was that one isn't
necessarily going to ship production code with PyCrash. Even if people
will do that, there are still plenty of situations where the GPL won't
stop them.

I think it's a fair choice of licence.

GPL license has a two-fold agenda (whether you like it or not):
- to protect the developer from liability (with our crazy lawers it is
necessary for to protect yourself from some idiot misusing your generous
contribution)
True.

- (this is a political-socioeconomic one) to spread GPL virally into
code that uses it to achieve world peace, prosperity and whatever in the
way Richard Stallman envisions it.

Interesting use of Ballmeresque terminology there. Usage of "cancer"
and "un-American" will give you a full house.

This is a complicated issue, and I
personally prefer to avoid commiting my code to this vision without
fully understanding the implications. What it basically means to me is
that I cannot use your code at work, which is annoying.

Perhaps you can't use GPL'd code at work, and you therefore come out
with this rhetoric for pretty much the same reasons that Microsoft and
SCO attack the GPL: because they can't just lift GPL-licensed code,
stuff it into their own products and then refuse to treat their users
as they themselves have been treated. That doesn't stop lots of other
commercial outfits from using GPL'd code, however.

Paul

 

[A. Lloyd Flanagan]

Sounds great but... Why GPL (and not python)? It will prevent a lot of
us working grunts from using the module in the Commanie's code... And we
want MORE python!
my 0.5c

Look at it this way -- why should he share code with you, if you won't
share it with him? If your company doesn't want to use the GPL they
have the option of developing it themselves.
You just want a free lunch.

 

[Peter Hansen]

I have chosen the GPL without any special reason: I know it and so I
simply used it. I’m not a license expert: I write code, no contracts.
However, my major intent is to contribute to python community with this
tool: so, if the type of licence can be a problem for the end-user I’m
ready to change it in the future.

The page at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ can rapidly propel you
towards a better understanding of license issues.

In any case, I recommend the MIT license (on that page) as the simplest
way to "contribute to the python community" if you have no particular
desire to constrain the use of your code in any way (including, for example,
requiring things like "proper credit be given in the documentation" etc).

-Peter

 

[Paul Rubin]

The page at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ can rapidly propel you
towards a better understanding of license issues.

You might also look at:

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

the section "What is Copyleft?" explains a bit of the GPL rationale.

In any case, I recommend the MIT license (on that page) as the simplest
way to "contribute to the python community" if you have no particular
desire to constrain the use of your code in any way (including, for example,
requiring things like "proper credit be given in the documentation" etc).

Well, public domain is simpler, but "simplest" doesn't necessarily
mean "best". The GPL aims to make sure that everyone receives all the
benefits of any improvements that anyone makes, and also to guarantee
that end users have the freedom to study and modify the code that they
run. The MIT license (etc.) is of somewhat more benefit to product
vendors, since it lets them freely use your code in proprietary
products without having to pass that freedom on to their users. I.e.
you get to be an unpaid developer for someone else's proprietary product.

My own approach has been that I GPL stuff that I write with my own
resources, but I'm flexible about licenses if I'm getting paid for the
work. That's the spirit of the MIT license too, since it was
negotiated with corporate sponsors of the MIT projects it was
originally applied to, i.e. the programmers who worked on those
projects were writing code that ended up in those companies' products,
but they were also getting paid by those companies, so it was fair.
(I worked at the MIT Athena project for a while so I got some of that
money myself). There's been a few times when someone has asked me to
use an MIT-like license on a self-financed project and I've replied
I'd consider if it the requester was willing to provide development
funding. Nobody has taken me up on that so far. It kind of makes you
wonder.

 

[Peter Hansen]

Well, public domain is simpler,

That's arguable. I've certainly seen more discussion here and elsewhere
about the concept of "public domain" and whether or not it even exists
in some places that I'd argue that the MIT license *is* simpler, but
the discussion won't benefit anyone right now.

but "simplest" doesn't necessarily mean "best".

True. It's the OP's choice, but he seemed to be looking along the lines
of "simplest", IMHO.

The GPL aims to make sure that everyone receives all the
benefits of any improvements that anyone makes, and also to guarantee
that end users have the freedom to study and modify the code that they
run. The MIT license (etc.) is of somewhat more benefit to product
vendors, since it lets them freely use your code in proprietary
products without having to pass that freedom on to their users. I.e.
you get to be an unpaid developer for someone else's proprietary product.

Yeah, whatever. I see MIT as a simple way to say "here you go, I'm
clearly not restricting what you do with this". If you want to get
into *enforcing* the freedom of your code, then you can certainly look
at GPL, but some people aren't into that kind of thing and don't mind
if someone finds a way to profit from their work in some small way.
Some people would even feel proud if that happened...

-Peter