On 9 May 2014 08:22, "Donald Stufft" <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
>
>
> On May 8, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> I actually need to follow up on that, because the terms *were* legally questionable last time I looked (also too hard to review, since as far as I am aware, they're only presented during new user sign-up).
>>
>> I'll deal with that at work today.
>>
>>
> I’m pretty sure VanL wrote the terms and has explicitly said they won’t change and are exactly as broad as they need to be without being any broader[1]. They are linked to from the footer of every UI centric PyPI page.

Thanks for the additional references. It should be possible to clarify the terms to address Red Hat's (and other users') concerns while still addressing the points Van is worried about (for example, adding a footnote explaining the use cases that need to be covered, and being explicit that users must respect *both* licenses).

However, this subthread is now even further off-topic for this list, so I'll take it to python-legal-sig later today with some specific proposed wording changes.

Cheers,
Nick.

>
> [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/2013-March/000003.html
>
> -----------------
> Donald Stufft
> PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
>