More Python licensing questions

[Tim Peters]

[Henry Jones]
> While browsing at the Python 1.6 web site
> <URL: http://www.python.org/1.6/> I clicked on "view
> license", which is a link to <URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1011>.
> This in turn brings up the web page:
> <URL: http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6beta8-5-2000.html>.
> I was struck by the phrase "python_licenses" in the URL.  Take a look
> at the containing subdirectory.

Heh -- good sleuthing!  I bet CNRI doesn't want you to do that, though, so
don't <wink>.

> Obviously the documents dated 12-Jul-00 predate the Python 1.6b1
> license dated 04-Aug-00.  They also seem to contain language in
> Sections 3 and 6 different from 1.6b1's.

And you wouldn't believe how much work went into each word that changed!
That's why I have to punt whenever someone asks for "an opinion":  to the
people who do this stuff *for real*, every slight turn of phrase carries a
universe of implications.  One of my favorites is this from paragraph 7:

    This License Agreement does not grant permission to
    use CNRI trademarks ...

You can see that in earlier versions that reads:

    Licensee may not use CNRI trademarks ...

Which one do you feel safer with <0.9 wink>?

> The 1.6b1 license is the final version hammered out in the
> negotiations with CNRI and BeOpen with input from Open Source
> community leaders.
>
> (If one were to click on the handles in the 12-Jul-00 documents,
> the links would not resolve properly because they have TBD not
> the proper number.  But if one manually inputs the handles
> indicated in the documents, these work in a browser to access the
> documents correctly.)
>
> My understanding of handles is that handles are supposed to
> be persistent.

Yes, and the handle system was invented and developed by CNRI.  While I
can't say for sure, I think it's a safe bet that's why handles are mentioned
in the CNRI Open Source License.  Here's an intro:

    http://www.handle.net/introduction.html

> Yes I know, only CNRI the copyright holder can answer questions
> about their affairs.  I have sent them a snail mail letter,
> not that they owe me a reply or anything.  But I wish someone
> with real access could ask whether CNRI wants 1.5.2 under
> something similar to the negotiated 1.6b1 license.

Guido and I are working out a License FAQ that we hope CNRI will agree to
review and jointly sign off on.  The status of past Python releases is among
the questions.  There's no guarantee anything will come of that, though.
It's certainly curious that there's a version of the new license naming
1.5.2!  They may have been playing with that for practice, or maybe CNRI
intends to re-release 1.5.2, or ... no idea.  We'll get the question into
the FAQ, anyway.

whether-we-also-get-an-answer-remains-to-be-seen-ly y'rs  - tim