The Python 1.6 License Explained

[Andrew Dalke]

Hello,

  I used the old CWI license as the basis for biopython.org's license,
although with a few name changes as appropriate.  Given the answers
in #1-3 (copied below, though trimmed to make a bit smaller), does that
mean the biopython.org code has the same legal problems, that is,
not being published, not a legally binding license and able to be
revoked?

  If so, should I convince everyone (about 5 people now) to switch
over to the new BSD copyright - the one without the advertising clause?
Though it seems also to lack clauses concerning these "problems."

  Or what about adding statements like "this is a legally binding
document which cannot be revoked except by material breach of one or
more terms" and "presence of licensed source code and any accompanying
text constitutes publishing."

Guido wrote:
>    1.The old Python license from CWI worked well for almost 10
>    years. Why a new license for Python 1.6?

>      However, for a number of technical reasons, CNRI never formally
>      licensed this work for Internet download, although it did permit
>      Guido to share the results with the Python community.

>    2.Why isn't the new CNRI license as short and simple as the CWI
>    license? Are there any issues with it?
>
>      A license is a legally binding document, and the CNRI Open Source
>      License is [....] simple [...] while still maintaining a balance
>      between the need for access and other use of Python with CNRI's
rights.

>    3.Are you saying that the CWI license did not protect our rights?

>      The CNRI Open Source License is a binding contract between CNRI and
>      Python 1.6's users and, unlike the CWI statement, cannot be revoked
>      except for a material breach of its terms.  So this provides a
>      licensing certainty to Python users that never really existed before.

                    Andrew