Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Tim Peters]

[joneshenry at my-deja.com, quotes paragraph 3 of the proposed CNRI
 Open Source License to be applied to Python 1.6b1]

> > 3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on
> > or incorporates Python 1.6b1or any part thereof, and wants to make the
> > derivative work available to the public as provided herein, then
> > Licensee hereby agrees to indicate in any such work the nature of the
> > modifications made to Python 1.6b1.

> Obvious disclaimer, IANAL.
>
> According to 2a) of the GPL at
> <URL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>
>
>     "You must cause the modified files to carry
>      prominent notices stating that you changed
>      the files and the date of any change.
>
> I cannot see how these two clauses can be made compatible
> or how the restrictions of the proposed CNRI Python license
> can be seen as a subset of the GPL's. ...

Save yourself some finger skin <wink>:  Richard Stallman has already agreed
that this clause is GPL-compatible, in the context of the license as a
whole.  The only clause CNRI and RMS are still debating is the "State of
Virginia" clause.  Questions about all that should be directed to CNRI
and/or RMS, though.