Licensing Status of Python 1.5

[joneshenry at my-deja.com]

In article <9swm5.6979$Z2.116791 at nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
  "Warren Postma" <embed at NOSPAM.geocities.com> wrote:
> As we are using Python 1.5 in our commercial applications, I have a
few
> questions about the Python 1.5 (not 1.6/2.0) license.
>
> I am hoping for assurance that (a) it's not legal or enforceable to
claw
> back priveleges previously granted to the 1.5  source code which has
already
> been released, and (b) any new restrictive licensing for 1.6 will in
no way
> affect the use of 1.5.

IANAL, nor am I speaking for any party, but just look at the
Python 1.6b1 license.  To my untrained eye, there ARE no "priveleges"
being taken away relative to 1.5 and no new restrictions for
someone merely using Python in commercial applications and/or
embedding Python.

There is one passage:
    "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."

This seems very broad to me.  I can find nothing that reads of
a restriction such as the GPL's for requiring availability of
source code.

Of course for these generous terms perhaps we should thank the
negotiations between CNRI and BeOpen and the input solicited
from Open Source leaders.

To my untrained eye, the additional sections that were added
between the Python 1.5.2 documents and the Python 1.6b1
license simply 1) explicitly acknowledge CNRI as the copyright
holder and give other corroborating information and 2) strengthen
the disclaimer of warranty or any other such guarantees.

Now these are purely speculations, but one thing that has
happened in between the release of 1.5.2 and today is the
passage of UCITA in Virginia.  You can go to
<URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html>
to read RMS's misgivings about UCITA.  Be that as it may,
individuals and organizations in states that have adopted
UCITA have reasonable grounds for taking measures to protect
themselves from liability.

This is one reason I believe it is important to establish a
free software community consensus about simply asking copyright
holders when there are any questions and to not assume that
"silence gives assent".  Besides, every announcement of 1.6b1 I've
seen has carried an opinion that 1.6 will be released "soon".

Henry Jones


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.