
CNRI understands that open source (and now Open Source -- the OSI board has approved the old Python license!) like Python requires different licensing terms than a typical product developed solely by CNRI.
Actually, this is a good point. I know the issue of payment may get in the way, but it would make sense to have any future proposed licenses reviewed by a lawyer "on our side" - eg, someone whose mandate is to give a legal opinion on the risks and liabilities of the _user_ of the license. Obviously the CNRI lawers are protecting their (ie, CNRI's) interests, and everyone on this group is concerned about their own (ie, personally, their company, or companies they wish to introduct Python into) interests. If the legal jibberish can't be removed (which is likely with lawyers involved) I know I would personally feel much more comfortable with a legal opinion covering my interests.. But as I said, who will pay? If nothing else, we should ensure the OSI approves of the new license... Or maybe we can convince CNRI there is real and serious concern, and they could pay for an external IP lawyer? Mark.