Still no new license -- but draft text available

[joneshenry at my-deja.com]

In article <200008020409.XAA01355 at cj20424-a.reston1.va.home.com>,
  Guido van Rossum <guido at beopen.com> wrote:

> 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.

Obvious disclaimer, IANAL.

According to 2a) of the GPL at
<URL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>

    "You must cause the modified files to carry
     prominent notices stating that you changed
     the files and the date of any change.

I cannot see how these two clauses can be made compatible
or how the restrictions of the proposed CNRI Python license
can be seen as a subset of the GPL's.  The GPL requires that
the modification information be available in each modified
file.  CNRI's Python license does not require this, only
some nebulous "in any such work".  (Possibly this could
be in another separate file?)  However, the GPL only
requires, at least from my reading of it, a "prominent"
indication of the fact that the file has been modified from
the original, the person who did it ("you changed the files"),
and the "date of the change".  In my interpretation of the
language, the GPL does NOT require an indication of the
"nature of the modifications", that is, some sort of
description of what modifications were made.

Henry Jones


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