Public Domain Python

[Pat McCann]

wtanksle at dolphin.openprojects.net (William Tanksley) writes:

> I *am* glad to read that they believe that this is their right only under
> the CWI license; I'm not sure I follow their logic, and I hope they don't
> reinvent their logic for their new, improved license.
...
> concerned); my big worry is the question of how they got to do this, and
> whether they're going to do it again.

CNRI did something few of us have done. They got legal counsel to advice
them about their license.  Doing some guessing here, based on some things
Tim wrote, their lawyers apparently convinced them that the CWI license
only establishes what is called a "simple (or bare) license" which,
under law, are (sometimes?) revocable.  I say "sometimes" because there is
also "case law" which implies that they are not revocable in some
situations, such as when it would cost the licensee money or something
(I wish I knew more).  The new license has been given words which
clearly establish a contract (which is generally irrevocable without
explicit terms to the contrary).  In the commercial world you'll usually 
see these referred to as "license agreements" to make it more obvious
that it is a two-sided thing.

But there is always risk involved.  I've read of lawyers claiming that
the GPL is revocable by some theory that I never really understood, but
I think amounted to a version of the law that definitely exists in some
places (in the US once, I'd like to know where now) that there is no
binding contract unless the two parties have exchanged things of value.