Greg Stein wrote:
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:
Oh boy, this is really going to cause trouble. Where's my flame suit...
The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause. I might find other items, but that is from a quick read using Lynx on a tiny monitor...
I guess I am used to reading license agreements, and I am not very worried about the new one. Before we all get upset, lets remember that Guido works in a large company with lots of lawyers, and he trapped between a group of Internet geeks (hey, I like Internet geeks) and his buracracy. And remember that lawyers respond better to specific proposals for language changes than philosophical discussion. First off, the license is not revokable. It is only revokable on breach. If a license can not be revoked on breach it doesn't really mean anything. This is totally standard. Suppose someone else claims to own Python and starts selling "The True Standard Python" for $100. Suppose they change the standard library names so software only runs on their version. CNRI should be able to revoke their license to use Python. This is something we would all want CNRI to do. The protection of the Python name is a necessity. That is really all CNRI has, since the license gives away use of the software itself. If CNRI doesn't own "Python" then it can't object when someone else claims they own it. Don't we want them to object? The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you can't use it in a trademark sense. I think that means you can say "I am teaching a course on Python, which is CNRI's software" but not "I am teaching a course on my Python, all rights reserved". Actually this is a little unclear, perhaps (4) could be made a little clearer. Paragraph (3) is a little troublesome. I seems to mean that if you ship a modified Python, you must say it is modified. I presume it doesn't mean that you must describe your own code in the event it incorporates Python. Really, we need to know what CNRI wants us to do here. On the contributions side (wetsign.html) it says you are contributing software free of third party claims "to the best of your knowledge and belief" not "represents and warrants" which is different. CNRI really has to be told that as far as you know, you didn't steal the software you are contributing. This is reasonable. Actually I might like to see a warranty disclaimer "NO WARRANTIES etc." like the license paragraph (5) and (6). I am not sure I need it since the contribution is free, but I usually ship free software with a disclaimer for "fitness for any particular purpose etc.". This is a pretty weak license agreement. Remember that if it is too weak, it prevents CNRI from defending Python against others who would claim they own it or who claim they are the true source of the language design (paranoia department: Microsoft's Python++). We want CNRI to defend Python, right? Jim Ahlstrom