Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Suchandra Thapa]

Tim Peters <tim_one at email.msn.com> wrote:
>[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.

    IANAL, but I don't believe the FSF could do much if the GPLed code was
not theirs.  They couldn't use for copyright infringement since they don't
hold the copyright.  The only one who would be able to effective do anything
would be the owners of the copyright to the GPLed code.  I believe this is the 
rationale behind the FSF's insistene that all authors who submit code to them
also assign the copyrights to the FSF.