Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Tim Peters]

[Emile van Sebille]
> Good point.  Who's likely to take issue?  CNRI claims
> to believe the license is GPL compatible.  That leaves
> the GPL licensed code author.  For what purpose would
> it be pursued?  Could commercial python code presumably
> be forced open sourced by such an action?  Is that what's
> at stake?

The FSF would have to take action against someone who links Python with
GPL'ed code and makes the result available to others.  "Action" needn't be
legal, and indeed hasn't been yet, although it's *based* on legalities.
They can't just let it slide:  the GPL is FSF's core tool, so they can't
afford to let anyone thumb their nose at it.  Their disagreement now is with
CNRI; if it's not resolved, their *fight* will be with Python programmers
who take CNRI's side.

Whether the CNRI license *is* incompatible with the GPL is still in dispute.
Even so, Debian is already burning time preparing for the worst.  Suspicion
can be as bad as conviction.

Commerical Python code is in no direct danger, although the commercial folk
have, in general, a severe underappreciation for how much good GPL'ed code
is doing them, and how it will eventually limit their own market and
staffing abilities if Python gets locked out of the GPL world.

> Wishing-lawyers-had-to-write-laws-in-python-ly y'rs

Bite your tongue!  All we need in 2.1 is to add adjudication comprehensions
and augmented depositions and ...

case-closed-ly y'rs  - tim