The Python 1.6 License Explained

[Tim Peters]

[FAQ]
>> CNRI claims copyright in Python code and documentation from
>> releases 1.3 through 1.6 inclusive.  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. *** As none of this work was
>> published either***, there were no CNRI copyright notices placed ...

[Neil Hodgson]
>    [My *s] Looks like it was published to me. It was made publically
> available. CNRIs web servers transmitted the work. How can they possibly
> contend that it was not published?

ICSFC (I Can't Speak For CNRI), and IANAL, BMUITT (But My Understading Is
That "They" (meaning CNRI and/or their lawyers)) believe that merely making
something available to the public over the web does not meet the technical
meaning of "publication" under U.S. copyright law.  Note that the license is
internally consistent here, too:  that's why another clause says "make
available to the public" instead of "publish" when describing when *you*
have to do the license dance.  While it makes no intuitive sense to me, I
will admit that my appreciation for CNRI's fascination with teensy twists of
wording has grown immeasurably over the past decade <wink>.

or-maybe-it's-only-been-a-few-months-ly y'rs  - tim