Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Greg Ewing]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't
> think that we agreed to release 2.0 with the same style of license.
>
> But either way, 2.0 would be subject to the 1.6 license because it is
> a derivative work.

Which, according to what we've seen of the 1.6 license,
effectively means that the 2.0 license has to include
all the 1.6 license terms, and maybe some of the exact
wording as well.

Would it be feasible to fork 2.0 from whatever was the
last version released under the old license? How much
would have to be redone?

--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,	  
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:	  
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg