Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Bernhard Reiter]

In article <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCOEKGHEAA.tim_one at email.msn.com>,
	"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> writes:

> It's a "political" situation only if CNRI and the FSF fail to reach
> agreement:  please help us make clear to them that resolution is what you
> want (provided, of course, that you *would* rather see a peaceful resolution
> than a political circus).

Of course I just want this to be resolved.
>From what read now I think that we need a python user petition
which targets CNRI and the FSF.

> We could have delayed releasing 2.0b1 longer than we did, but once
> CNRI had their 1.6 release it was no skin off their nose if
> BeOpen's 2.0b1 never got released, and seemingly no skin off the
> FSF's nose either.

True.

> Rather than commit suicide in ineffective protest, we made a deal with CNRI
> that they would continue negotiating in good faith with the FSF.  CNRI has
> agreed that if they can reach resolution 

I can see this as a constructive action on your part.

It is more that I really cannot understand the problem on CNRI's
part here. Actually I did send mail that I wanted to sign 
the open letter to CNRI, which was crafted here, but I must have
missed the result of it. :-/

> You're free to believe that we don't care, but we're doing the best we know
> how.  It is true, however, that our first loyalties are to Python, and we
> will not let Python die a martyr's death.

Seriously I can understand that,
but you see that this negociations are in a way political.
So to say: "We will use and work with python anyway at this points.",  
is removing a huge part of pressure.
(This is just about tactics in general, again no offense meant, 
I can see that you are concerned about the licensing problem.)

>> A non-GPL compatible python is a disaster and this is grave for
>> python and BeOpen.
> 
> I agree, but the question of GPL compatibility is still in dispute.  The FSF
> says it's not compatible, CNRI's laywer says it is.  BeOpen.com hired
> another lawyer, and they happened to agree with CNRI's.  

Thanks for more information about it. 

> It would be helpful if people *told* both sides that they *want* this
> resolved.

> You seem to have made up your mind already; that's fine, but I'm not sure
> you've heard CNRI's side of it at all.  If you want to, ask them nicely, and
> tell them it's *important* to you:  

No I have not read CNRI' side of it.
I think I will craft a letter to CNRI asking about this.

Does anybody have some times on its hand to organise a python user petition?

having-too-many-important-free-software-issue-to-care-about-ly y'rs,
	Bernhard

-- 
Professional Service around Free Software                (intevation.net)  
The FreeGIS Project				            (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure            (ffii.org)