Questions for Guido van Rossum

[Gary Momarison]

Courageous <jkraska1 at san.rr.com> writes:

> They don't believe their own license was valid? Say what?
> Tell me it ain't so.

I think he is referring to the CWI license with Python during
CNRI's derivative work Python up till the new CNRI license.

First, let me say that people shouldn't be saying "CNRI owns the
copyright" but "CNRI shares copyright ownership with CWI in the
collective and joint works which are Python 1.5 to 1.6a2".

Second, we might (if we has lots of money and no need/desire to
keep CNRI happy) ignore CNRI's license and assume that CNRI's attempt 
to change the licensing ("valid" or not) on a work in which CWI shares 
copyright ownership is invalid.  I know it's not an practical option for
the core Python teams, but I sure wish I could afford to try it or at
least run it by some good IP lawyers.

Getting back to the quote above, there's two ways I suspect CNRI can
think the CWI license is not valid.  1) As I said before, they probably
just don't think it's very good for them.  It's not.  But that shouldn't 
matter (except for practical matters) to people who have already been
made a party to the contract.  2) CNRI could be thinking that THEY never 
published the code with the CWI license; only Guido, et al., put them
out without proper authority.  I doubt that this could be upheld for
any but the most recent versions because they should have taken steps to
know what was in the Python releases after a short time.  If the last
version or two were published/licensed without authorith, I don't know
what the legal situation would be. I suspect they would have to eat
their "losses" and hold Guido, et al., responsible, if possible, but.

"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> writes:

> [Tim, out of context again -- and looking forward to having
>  isolated words quoted next <0.7 wink>]
> ...
> In context, this was in reference to a new release, not to retroactively
> replacing the license on an old release.  You later agreed that the
> copyright holder can use any license they like on a new release, which is
> what my quote above also said (in context).

They might also be able to change the license on an old release too,
but, as C. implied, the new license would not invalidate licenses of
people who are parties to old licenses.  That "might" would depend on
courts establishing that changes to licenses at the publisher's points
of of distribution (eg, web site) are sufficient notice.  Obviously all
old copies of the license cannot be recalled.  Time may tell.

> ...
> Different issue.  In context again, if CNRI does not believe the old (CWI)
> license was valid, there is (from their POV) no license on 1.5.2 (etc) *to*
> retract.  The ploy there is to claim that the derivatives were never legit
> to begin with.  And again, assorted parties' legal counsel are all over the
> map on this one.  I've said several times that this ploy makes little sense
> to me either, but apparently it does to some lawyers.

That's the thing about a ploy; it can be absolute nonsense and still
accomplish something useful to the person who employs it.  We should try
to distinguish among what can be done successfully, what is legal, and
what is right.  Too bad that's easier said than done.

I say their ploy will be successful, is probably illegal, and is not
right.  But often, one has to go along to get along.

I'm suprised to read that CNRI is claiming that there is (effectively)
no license on 1.5.2 (and presumably up to about 1.6.a2).  That's news to
me.  It's not hard to guess why they say that.  Besides the practical
reasons, they could say that the old licensing language makes it clear
that CWI has licensed it, but CNRI never has -- there is no reference
to them in any license or permission statement.  Their name only appears
in the copyright claim.

I doubt if any court in the land would find that Python has been
published for several years to the Internet with all rights reserved
and no license offered or implied.  That's ludicrous.  Besides, the
CWI license COULD be CNRI's; it just reads like they've got a stupid
lawyer.

I started to worry that they could say the code was published like most
web pages with only an implied right to copy and read and that's it.
But courts would surely (?) find that CNRI has bought into the common
belief that the CWI license applied because they well knew what was
being done with their code for years with no compliant from them. (That
sounds more like a wish than a legal argument, unfortunately.)

Regardless of that, the CWI license should apply in any event since
CWI still owns shared copyright in all derivatives of Python 0.0.1.