Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "TP" == Tim Peters <tim_one at email.msn.com> writes:

    TP> Indeed, I would love to release Python under this license:

But that's not GPL compatible!  Specifically,

    1. This LICENSE AGREEMENT is between the Individual or
    Organization ("Licensee") accessing and otherwise using
    Python 1.6, beta 1 software in source or binary form and
    its associated documentation, as released at the
    http://www.python.org Internet site on August 5, 2000 ("Python
    1.6b1"), and Guido van Rossum, whom Licensee, by virtue of
    accessing or otherwise using said software or documentation,
    acknowledges is their Benevolent Dictator for Life ("BDFL"),
    and whom Licensee undertakes never to displease by thought,
    word or deed.

No problem here.

    2. Licensee agrees to do unto others as they would have done
    unto them, unless Licensee is a masochist, in which latter
    case Licensee agrees to answer 50 questions per day on
    comp.lang.python, or to perform such other odious tasks as the
    BDFL may assign to them from time to time, at His sole
    discretion and pleasure.

A technical incompatibility.  It should read "Licensee agrees that
nothing in this license allows or disallows him or her to not do unto
others either as they would, or as they would not, have others do, or
not do, unto themselves."

    3. Licensee agrees that the BDFL is not responsible for
    anything bad that happens.  Licensee agrees to publicly praise
    the BDFL for everything good that happens.

Okay.

    4. Licensee agrees that this clause is not self-referential.

Actually, this should be #5, and #4 should read:

4. There is NO clause #4.

    5. Licensee agrees that defining the difference between
    clicking and not clicking is an epistimelogical impossibility.

This is okay.

    6. Licensee agrees that there is only one way to do it.

Another technical incompatibility.  It should read "This license does
not give Licensee the right to do it zero or fewer, nor greater than
or equal to two ways.  If licensee does do it one way, they should do
it this way only after having done it no ways, but Licensee should not
linger on doing it no ways, instead proceeding immediately to doing it
one way.  Licensee should not further continue in this way so as to do
it two or, BDFL forbid, more different ways.  If that's the way
Licensee wants to do it."

put-that-on-a-t-shirt-and-make-us-all-happy-ly y'rs,
-Barry