Python License Issues

[Tim Peters]

[christoforou at gaaros.com]
> Hello from rainy London

Rain!  What a concept <wink>.

> We have an issue with the python license which basically boils
> down to this:

You're going to have to ask your lawyer/solicitor for legal opinions.

> If we ship an application that uses python, is the user of our
> application bound by the python license agreement (PSF)?

My understanding (and I am not a lawyer) is that, with respect to the Python
portion of the application you ship, yes.  With respect to your portion, no,
they're bound by whatever license you add to the stack.  You can add
additional protections to the Python portion of your work, if you want to,
but there's nothing you can do to make the PSF magically offer protections
to your users that it explicitly refused to offer to you.

> It seems so given clause 8 of the PSF:
>
>    8. By copying, installing or otherwise using Python 2.1.2, Licensee
>       agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License
>       Agreement.
>
> If such is the case we will encounter problems with clients that
> do not like clause 4 of the PSF which states:
>
>  4. PSF is making Python 2.1.2 available to Licensee on an "AS IS"
>     basis.  PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
>     MPLIED.  BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PSF MAKES NO AND
>     DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
>     FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF PYTHON
>     2.1.2 WILL NOTINFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
>
> Some clients demand a certain level of 'protection' from
> situations of gross misconduct, say python has stolen major chunks of
> code from other apps and thus exposing them to huge legal risks.

The Python license is par for the open-source course here:  since Python is
distributed without charge, PythonLabs has no revenue, so we either supply
the work as "use at your own risk", or not at all.  Give the PSF enough
money (say, equivalent to the GNP of a small country or two <0.9 wink>), and
I'm sure a different licensing arrangement could be worked out.

> We can consider accepting liability on all third party code we use, for
> such gross misconduct situations but is it technically possible to do so
> given the PSF license?

Actually, I don't understand your problem here.  The PSF license is a
contract between the end user and the PSF.  It (and unlike the GPL) says
nothing about additional terms you may want to add in *your* license.  If
you can consider accepting liability (and bless you, if so), fine, do so,
and that's between you and *your* users.  Clause 4 of the PSF license says
the *PSF* makes no representations etc (it does not say that you can't), and
that's the plain and unalterable truth.  It doesn't prevent you from
accepting more responsibility than the PSF is able to accept.

> Ideally we would like to negotiate a single license agreement with
> these clients (our license agreement) which provides additional
> liability over and above to that which PSF provides. However given
> clause 4 it seems that the client *must* directly be bound by the PSF
> license.

I believe that part goes much deeper than clause 4.  You're seeking to
*re*license Python, and nothing in the Python license grants you the power
to do so (clause 4 isn't really relevant to this issue).  Indeed, nothing in
the CNRI license (which the PSF inherited) grants the PSF the power to
relicense the CNRI portion of the work either; the PSF license is stacked on
top of the BeOpen license, which is stacked on top of the CNRI license,
which is stacked on top of the CWI license.  You would have to negotiate
with all these entities to let you relicense their portions of the work, if
you wanted to rid your product of their licenses.

It's hard to see a real need for that, though:  CWI, CNRI, BeOpen and the
PSF simply aren't going to accept liability no matter what (e.g., BeOpen is
out of business, and the assets of the PSF currently consist of one book on
forming a non-profit corporation, which the Treasurer paid for out of his
own pocket <wink>).  Their licenses simply say so up front, and don't
preclude you from adding whatever additional terms suit your business model.

if-someone-wants-to-sue-the-psf-for-the-book-the-psf-would-declare-
    bankruptcy-ly y'rs  - tim