The State of Python

[Tim Peters]

[Steve Lamb]
>     Stupid question: Why is it everyone and their mother is
> coming out with a new open source license for their project
> instead of sticking with the established ones?

I wish I knew.  Haggling over the license for Python has delayed the BeOpen
Python release plans repeatedly, so all I see now are the costs; when the
new license is posted, you can judge for yourself whether it was worth the
delays.  I've heard indirectly that CNRI (Python's former home, and author
of the new license) believes the new license provides new protections for
the community, but AFAIK they've made no public stmt about that.  Maybe my
employer will shoot me for saying so, but in *general* I find it sadly
ironic that everyone plays along with carrying out negotiations about new
"Open Source" licenses behind closed doors; while the result may be "open",
the process sure isn't.

> I mean, it causes headaches trying to keep all of the licenses
> legally compatible with one another which can cause problems for
> open source down the road when these licenses are actually put to
> the legal test.

Std pitch:  If you're sure that you want *not* to control what people do
with your project (which was the clear intent of the old Python license),
consider putting it in the public domain from the start.  As soon as it's
got a license, you're going to have to hassle with it forever after, and
every legal entity that touches your project is going to want to add their
own unique twists (which is why licenses proliferate, I think -- asking a
lawyer to refrain from changing an inherited license is like asking a hacker
to leave inherited code alone <0.3 wink>).  The decision to put something in
the public domain is irrevocable, so stops that game before it starts.  In
the area of programming languages, the decision to develop Icon
(http://www.cs.arizona.edu/icon/) in the public domain has granted Ralph
Griswold a long, happy and lawyer-free life.

not-speaking-for-anyone-ly y'rs  - tim