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:
Obviously IANAL. However, this language does make me feel less comfortable than the existing one. The ability to terminate would appear an issue - it would seem to take a braver CEO to base their technology on Python with this hanging over them. Sure, it may rarely be invoked, but I certainly wouldnt want to fight it in court if it was. If I was writing in C, I could worst-case grudgingly accept needing to change compilers - but I dont have that luxury for Python. If my license was terminated, I have nowhere else to turn. It is a real shame when lawyers get so involved. Obviously Guido has no say in this, but IMO the ideal scenario would be to use the exsting language, but simply change the names and dates. Im guessing this would be unacceptable to CNRI. Being NAL, I suppose I have no choice other than to trust this licence. However, Im not looking forward to showing this licence to people as they are deciding if Python is the appropriate technology choice - to date, there has never been an issue - all they need to is not remove any copyright notice from the code (which is not actually seen in most apps) and add the copyright notice to the documentation. This new one seems much scarier to me.. Just my $200.00 worth (remember, we are talking lawyers fees here :-) I dont have a real concern as I dont understand the legal implications; just a slight uneasiness about it all...Not being controversial for the sake of it, just airing my possibly il-informed opinion - no opinions were solicitied, but that has never stopped me before :-) Of course, I will be sending my "wet" signature on the form. Im not sure what to put in the "contribution description" - maybe just "various small changes to the Windows port"?? I can't say Ive added entire modules, but my name appears against a number of small patches to a fairly large set of files... Mark.