On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I believe the text of the license and forms we use is quite uncontroversial; these very same words have been used for JPython for quite a while. The words are all on the web:
http://www.python.org/1.5/pylicense.html [proposed license] http://www.python.org/1.5/bugrelease.html [email release] http://www.python.org/1.5/wetsign.html [wet signature release]
Hi all. I'm sorry i haven't contributed anything to the relative-import and python-path discussions of late, but that's because so far i haven't had any ideas that have crossed my threshold of being sufficiently insightful to propose. I will follow the discussion with much interest. I'm afraid i have to say that the revocation clause makes me pretty uncomfortable. I know that it says CNRI will revoke only on a "material breach", but i still have a nasty suspicion that it sounds frightening enough to scare many people away. I don't think we want that. I suppose Greg's other points of contention are valid too but it's really the revocation that bugs me the most. -- ?!ng