Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Tim Peters]

[Thomas Wouters]
> As I see it, if CNRI made substansive changes to the licence
> between 1.6 and 2.0, BeOpen PythonLabs Python 2.0

Isn't it great the way we tricked everyone into saying "BeOpen PythonLabs"
via sheer repetition?  Branding is fun <wink>.

> 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.

Yes, it is a Code-Reality (if not legal) fact that 1.6 is more of an
offshoot of 2.0 than vice versa, and some truly major features were
backstitched into 1.6 from the 2.0 tree (most notably Marc-Andre Lemburg's
Unicode support, and Fredrik Lundh's new Unicode-aware regular expression
engine).  Should it come to that, I'm not sure the courts will know what to
do in the face of Guido's time machine.  They've barely even dealt with the
reality of quantum bilocation yet, let alone Guido's at-will reversals of
cause and effect.

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

Amen to that.

let's-start-by-everyone-donating-a-spare-kidney-ly y'rs  - tim