Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Thomas Wouters]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 12:28:39AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Peter_Halvorson at nfuel.com]

> > Can CNRI have a change of heart at any time and come up with
> > a new license which applies to 2.0 as well?

> They could *try* to, sure.  But everyone has been negotiating in good faith,
> and the *agreement* is that if the proposed 1.6 license is "good enough",
> BeOpen PythonLabs will release 2.0 with the exact same (modulo "1.6b1" ->
> "2.0", and-- I guess --a different "handle") CNRI Open Source license.  I
> wouldn't worry about this.  If CNRI tried to make substantive changes in the
> license between 1.6 and 2.0, the agreement is broken so we wouldn't feel
> bound by it either.  Fundamentally, trust Guido here!  If he feels the
> community is about to be screwed, he'll walk.  He may have sold out, but he
> doesn't come cheap <wink>.

As I see it, if CNRI made substansive changes to the licence between 1.6 and
2.0, BeOpen PythonLabs Python 2.0 would not be obliged to accept them. The
2.0 tree was forked between 1.6a2 and 1.6b1 (or rather, the 1.6b1 tree was
retroactively forked at some point in 2.0 development ;) so 2.0 is based on
1.6b1 *at most*, and the licence for 1.6-final would not apply to it. If
1.6-final would contain anything 2.0 would want and can't have because of
that (not likely, but still) that'd be tough shit.

But then, IANAL, and I think everything should be as simple as Python.

> Indeed, I would love to release Python under this license:

>     1. This LICENSE AGREEMENT is between the Individual or
>     Organization ("Licensee") accessing and otherwise using
>     Python 1.6, beta 1 software in source or binary form and
>     its associated documentation, as released at the
>     http://www.python.org Internet site on August 5, 2000 ("Python
>     1.6b1"), and Guido van Rossum, whom Licensee, by virtue of
>     accessing or otherwise using said software or documentation,
>     acknowledges is their Benevolent Dictator for Life ("BDFL"),
>     and whom Licensee undertakes never to displease by thought,
>     word or deed.

What, no reference to you or your nuts ? This licensing thing must really be
getting to you ;)

>     6. Licensee agrees that there is only one way to do it.

No, no. That should be

    6. Licensee agrees that there is NO term 6.

    7. Licensee agrees that there is only one obvious way to do it.

or I won't accept the licence !

So-this-is-how-those-long-discussions-start-ly y'rs,
-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas at xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!