Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Guido van Rossum]

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

> They could *try* to, sure.  But everyone has been negotiating in good faith,
> and the *agreement* is that if the proposed 1.6 license is "good enough",
> BeOpen PythonLabs will release 2.0 with the exact same (modulo "1.6b1" ->
> "2.0", and-- I guess --a different "handle") CNRI Open Source license.

Tim, I appreciated and agree with the rest of your post, but I don't
think that we agreed to release 2.0 with the same style of license.
I'm personally in favor of the BSD license.
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html)

But either way, 2.0 would be subject to the 1.6 license because it is
a derivative work.

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

Apparently this does not apply to licenses. :-(

(Enjoyed the rest of this thread too but arrived too late to
participate.)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)