Public Domain Python

[Grant Griffin]

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> [Grant Griffin]
> > ...
> > Wouldn't it be nice if the original CWI license had some kind of
> > copyleft-style clause that applied *only* to its next official caretaker
> > (that being CNRI), but left the _rest_ of us free to do with Python
> > whatever we wanted?  Then, the same sort of thing would now apply to
> > BeOpen.
> 
> I don't know how to do that short of the GPL route, though.  Defining
> "official caretaker" is the problem.  There's nothing "official" about
> BeOpen.com at this point wrt Python -- legally speaking, they're just one of
> a large crowd of copyright holders, so can't be singled out effectively.  I
> suppose the license *could* mention "Guido van Rossum's employer du jour",
> but that may be too novel for the courts to endure <wink>.  It would also
> re-raise paranoia about "what if Guido got hit by a bus?".

That just goes to show ya': lawyers, Usenet, and paranoia are a
dangerous combination. <wink>

But I guess in a very practical sense, the "official caretaker" is
whomever it is that significant contributors sign over their copyrights
to at any stage of Python's life.  (We've heard it rumored that CNRI
made contributors sign over their rights in some form, and presumably
BeOpen.com does too--though I really don't know.)

...
> Infinitely preferable would be for CNRI to assign copyright to an
> independent body representing the Python community "for real" (CNRI's only
> contact with the community is via the Python Consortium, whose few active
> members are hardly *representative* of our community), and for Guido's
> current & future employers to agree to assign whatever Python copyrights
> they may be entitled to over to that body too.  Fine by me if CNRI wanted to
> run that, but CNRI's clearly shouldn't be the sole voice in its decisions.
...
> picturing-how-this-should-eventually-end-but-not-yet-exactly-how-
>     to-get-there-ly y'rs  - tim

Yup, this clearly is the answer in the long term.  At this point in that
soap-opera which is "the open source movement" <<"number 2">>, we don't
yet know whether most BDFLs ultimately will outlive their
little-tin-goddoms <<pardon my french>>, but if not, creating some sort
of legal entity expressly for the purpose of owning and controlling
their work in perpetuity (or until people finally figure out that
computers are more trouble than they're worth <wink>) seems like the
inevitable solution.

Then again, don't such things invariably have "Boards of Directors"? 
And what self-respecting "Benevolent Dictator For Life" would stand for
being demoted to mere "Chairman"?  (Or even "Queen For a Day"? <wink>)

the-legal-experience-is-not-in-the-destination-but-the-journey
   -ly y'rs,

=g2
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation	      http://www.iowegian.com