license

[Arthur]

Tim writes -

>As I said, the PSF license requires that derived works include a brief
>summary of changes made from the base distribution. That, along with
>preserving the PSF licence and copyright notice, is roughly all it
requires.
>There are no restrictions on the nature of changes derived works can make.

There is no notice here of the intention to modify an inplace Python
installation and no notification that it has done so after it has done so.

One is left with a nonstandard installation, without notification of the
fact that is going to happen or that it did in fact happen.

The fact that the non-standard change persists after doing an uninstall, is
fuel to the fire, but not necessarily pertinent to whether there is a
license violation.

I would certainly see no problem arguing that this is indeed a license
violation.

I am curious why Terry is so adamant that it is not. That my suggestion is
even impertinent.

Not that anyone wants to be picayune.  The ugliness is the real point. But
it is,isn't or might be a particular kind of ugliness.

Art