Jeff Laing added the comment: With all due respect, I think that the 2.7.3 License Page is still being actively used by people as a reference, and it should be accurate. I agree that the code developers can't do anything, but the documentation for all releases, particularly in such a sensitive area as licensing, should be as up to date as possible. Similarly, the 3.0 License page talks about a "_random" module which presumably is going ahead. It has a license agreement displayed on the web page but I did not see that text copied into the regular LICENSE.txt that is part of the Python3 distribution, and that I assume meets the "supporting documentation" clause that all the module licenses seem to demand. Ditto socket. Ditto asyncore and asynchat. Ditto Cookie. Ditto trace. Ditto xmlrpclib. etcetera. I agree this is all a documentation exercise - perhaps there is another bug tracker I should be reporting it in? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker http://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________

Jesús Cea Avión added the comment: I am the maintainer of Berkeley DB python bindings, "pybsddb": http://www.jcea.es/programacion/pybsddb.htm If I recall correctly, Berkeley DB license is something like this: 1. Your code must be open source, if you distribute the programs to others. You can write a program for your business, for instance, and don't care about licensing, if it used internally only. OR 2. You have to pay a license to Oracle. Choose one. I could be mistaken... ---------- nosy: +jcea _______________________________________ Python tracker http://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________

Jeff Laing added the comment: @Jesús, as has been pointed out already, the Berkeley DB stuff is not part of Python 3 so I don't see any point in discussing this with Oracle. We don't actually use or need the bsddb module, it's just part of the standard runtime library that we ship. We will be removing the bsddb module from our distribution of the runtime library, while our app is embedding the 2.7 interpreter. Once we go to 3.0, the problem becomes moot. When discussing issues related to licensing, a visible audit trail is essential to show that one followed a genuine process in a timely fashion. When the lawyers come howling to our door, I want to be able to point at archived documentation that showed we were not knowingly continuing to violate a license condition once we became aware of it. With respect to mail.python.org mailing lists, the http://docs.python.org/bugs.html page explicitly says "if you want a more persistent record of your issue, you can use the issue tracker for documentation bugs as well". That suggested to me that there were more than just "developers" listening here. I feel like it's getting a bit meta if I raise an issue here requesting that the website be clarified to note that the documentors don't really look at issues here. :-) Thanks to all, my immediate problem is resolved, and I now know that I need to dig a lot deeper into all the documentation each time we upgrade, rather than assume that it's all consistent. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker http://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________

Jesús Cea Avión added the comment: If your program is not using Berkeley DB in any way, you don't need to worry about its license. The situation is similar to Berkeley DB being included in you linux distribution: if you don't use it, you don't have to worry. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker http://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________

Mark Lawrence added the comment: I think msg160322 and msg160339 are saying this isn't an issue. If I'm correct it can be closed. If I'm wrong who is best placed to provide the needed patch? ---------- nosy: +BreamoreBoy _______________________________________ Python tracker http://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________

Zachary Ware added the comment: As Python 2.7 has reached end-of-life and the bsddb module is not shipped with Python 3, I'm closing the issue. ---------- nosy: +zach.ware resolution: -> out of date stage: needs patch -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker https://bugs.python.org/issue14759 _______________________________________