license

[Arthur]

Tim writes-

>Not for that alone: the PSF license explicitly grants permission to make
>modifications and distribute derived works. Every OSI-certified license
>does, since freedom to make derived works is part of the Open Source
>definition (point 3 at <http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php>). While
>I am not a lawyer, it was intended that it be *hard* to violate the Python
>license. The license does require that derivative works include "a brief
>summary of the changes made to Python 2.3".

But understand, if he was redistributing Python with some notification that
what one is receiving is modified from Python2.3, there is not an issue.

The facts here -

One has a standard Python installation. That is assumed by the third party
distribution. And with no warning that it intends to do so, that the 3rd
party package you download modifies the standard installation, and gives no
notification that it did so.

And the modification does not even reverse itself if you uninstall that
package.

I think that's quite ugly.

And thought someone might agree.

its refreshing to know I'm *never* right.

Art