Questions for Guido van Rossum

[Tim Peters]

[Tim, out of context again -- and looking forward to having
 isolated words quoted next <0.7 wink>]
> As the copyright holder, they have the right to impose
> any license at all.

[Courageous]
> This doesn't strike me as correct. Once a license has been
> licensed to a *particular party*, that license can't be
> changed post-hoc by one of the sides unless the license
> says it can be. And, reading over the python license, it
> doesn't have that exclusion.
> ...

In context, this was in reference to a new release, not to retroactively
replacing the license on an old release.  You later agreed that the
copyright holder can use any license they like on a new release, which is
what my quote above also said (in context).

> So for example, somewhere in one of these threads a poster
> worried that CNRI could retract their license and therefor
> bust all derivative works of python. I don't believe this
> is actually possible. They can only change their license
> for *new* license holders.
> ...

Different issue.  In context again, if CNRI does not believe the old (CWI)
license was valid, there is (from their POV) no license on 1.5.2 (etc) *to*
retract.  The ploy there is to claim that the derivatives were never legit
to begin with.  And again, assorted parties' legal counsel are all over the
map on this one.  I've said several times that this ploy makes little sense
to me either, but apparently it does to some lawyers.