Mailman 3 License cleanup - Python-Dev

License cleanup

Guido van Rossum

14 Sep 1999 14 Sep '99

5:47 p.m.

After more than four years of living with an out-of-dated license for Python, CNRI has finally agreed to clean up Python's copyright status. I expect that this won't have any real effect before Python 1.6 is released, but I am required to start preparing for the transition now. We will use a new license (a clone of the JPython license) and we will require that all contributors explicitly allow us the use of their contribution: either a few email paragraphs in an email message, or a longer form with a wet signature, depending on the size of the contribution. 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] If you are reading python-dev but you never contributed any code to Python, you can stop reading now. If you *did* contribute code to Python, however, I'd love it if you saved me some work and filled out the wet signature form and mailed it to me at the given address. If you need help jogging your memory what your contributions were, send me email; I can try grepping the CVS files for your name. If you believe that special circumstances exist that make it impossible or difficult for you to sign the form, please send me email, and we'll discuss the matter. If you contributed something and I don't hear from you, you will eventually hear from me again -- but I hope I can save myself the hassle of writing each of you through this mass mailing. Thanks in advance! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Show replies by date

Greg Stein

14 Sep 14 Sep

6:08 p.m.

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:

Actually, I don't like them all that much :-( [I don't recall any specific discussion about it, but I may have missed it and/or simply because I've never used JPython.] 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... Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license. [there is a separate issue of whether "Python" can be trademarked, but the license does use the term "trade name" which could easily be argued to include the term "Python" and thus subject the name to the license.]

...

If you *did* contribute code to Python, however, I'd love it if you saved me some work and filled out the wet signature form and mailed it to me at the given address.

No problem. Future contributions and agreemend to abide by that license are a different issue. It doesn't have the "feels good" feeling that the old license does. I'm not sure that bodes well, and it doesn't sit well with me at the moment. Regards, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Guido van Rossum

6:31 p.m.

...

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...

Hm... We may have to review the regulation of the Python name. This made sense in the context of the previous uses of this license (JPython and Grail) but Python is a different thing -- the name Python stands for more than just the implementation. I'll discuss this with CNRI's legal team. I don't see how the other things you mention can be much of a problem (most Open Source licenses have a revocation clause these days, I think, and I don't see how discussing the modifications made can be a problem with open source users).

...

Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license.

How can you say that without consulting with the board? And I am *on* that board! I despise your attitude. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Greg Stein

7:11 p.m.

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

Hm... We may have to review the regulation of the Python name. This made sense in the context of the previous uses of this license (JPython and Grail) but Python is a different thing -- the name Python stands for more than just the implementation. I'll discuss this with CNRI's legal team.

Cool.

...

I don't see how the other things you mention can be much of a problem (most Open Source licenses have a revocation clause these days, I think, and I don't see how discussing the modifications made can be a problem with open source users).

I'll do some more reading. As I said: that was my first cut. The revocation clause doesn't sit well with me. Maybe other OSS packages have it, but I believe that is usually because the license was developed by a company and its legal team. I don't think the GPL, BSD, MPL, and Apache licenses have revocation clauses, and I consider those to be the "most open" types of licenses (MPL less so). The Python 1.5 license is just as open, more so than most.

...

...
Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license.

How can you say that without consulting with the board? And I am *on* that board! I despise your attitude.

Because the President (me) runs the day-to-day operation and direction of the company. The Board advises. The Board typically has other duties such as replacing me :-), handling stock issues, etc, but the Board is typically not involved with most issues. This is standard practice for corporate organization. Therefore, I *can* make that choice, and even do it unilaterally if I wanted to be an ass about it. Will I refuse to listen to the board or the shareholders or the employees? Of course I'll listen. [further PPSI issues should be taken offline] Regardless: it boils down to the "Python" requirement in that license. PPSI simply cannot operate under that license. If it gets dropped, then cool. -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Barry A. Warsaw

6:44 p.m.

...

...
...
...
...
"GS" == Greg Stein writes:

GS> Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely GS> like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python" GS> significantly in their marketing and their business. Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero complaints from them on the JPython license. -Barry

Greg Stein

7:16 p.m.

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

...

...
...
...
...
...
"GS" == Greg Stein writes: GS> Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely GS> like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python" GS> significantly in their marketing and their business.

Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero complaints from them on the JPython license.

Are they using it in their marketing, or simply as an underlying driving force for their products? If they *are* using it in their marketing, then they have exposed themselves to a liability. According to the license that they are using, they are not allowed to use JPython in their marketing. If they do, then they are in breach of the license and it could be terminated on them. Their products could no longer include JPython and they'd be SOL. I would be interested to hear from somebody using JPython and marketing it and how they interpreted that license. Possibly I'm missing something, but that language seems pretty darn clear to me. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Barry A. Warsaw

15 Sep 15 Sep

6:56 a.m.

...

...
...
...
...
"GS" == Greg Stein writes:

GS> Are they using it in their marketing, or simply as an GS> underlying driving force for their products? I'm not sure that JPython is much of a marketing advantage right now, so AFAIK none of them are actively promoting their use of JPython in their product. However, my reading of the second half of item 4 would allow them to say something like "You can even extend your flapjabs using our keen JPython-based scripting capabilities". GS> If they *are* using it in their marketing, then they have GS> exposed themselves to a liability. According to the license GS> that they are using, they are not allowed to use JPython in GS> their marketing. If they do, then they are in breach of the GS> license and it could be terminated on them. Their products GS> could no longer include JPython and they'd be SOL. I hope that wouldn't really be the case, but it's an interesting point, so I'm sure we'll bring it up. -Barry

Greg Ward

7:30 a.m.

On 14 September 1999, Barry A. Warsaw said:

...

Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero complaints from them on the JPython license.

Just thought I should join the tide of opposition: heck, I *work* for CNRI and I still don't like the license. I didn't say much about the new JPython license because a) I trust Barry's judgement, b) it was certainly an improvement over the old JPython license, and c) I wasn't especially worried about one part of CNRI (Guido's group) taking JPython away from another part (the group that Andrew and I are on). However, that doesn't change the fact that the "new" license is a nasty piece of legalistic gibberish. Making it the license for Python 1.6 would be a major setback -- while it was better than the old JPython license, it's a damn sight worse than the old Python license. I have zero sympathy for the legal beagles here with their narrow corporatist viewpoint; trying to treat Python as just another potential piece of intellectual property is wrong-headed in the extreme. The free software world simply does not work that way. BTW, I suspect that the companies embedding JPython haven't minded the license because they come from the Java world, a world that seems to me to be dominated by corporate pin-headed thinking. The idea of community, openness, and sharing is utterly alien to these suit-wearing, smarmy Java frat-boy types, so JPython's licensing terms were probably a breath of fresh air to them. ("What? No $100,000 source license fee? Wow!") ("But wait Chip -- it's not BUZZWORD COMPLIANT! I can't find enough TLAs!!!") Hmmm, enough flaming Java weenies. Please, don't anybody take the last paragraphy too seriously or personally... Greg -- Greg Ward - software developer gward@cnri.reston.va.us Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990 Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913

Fredrik Lundh

2:42 a.m.

...

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.

same here. reading the new one made me feel very uneasy, but I cannot really say much about it before I've discussed it with people who know more about this... just a few small notes: the BSD-ish license used up to now has been a major selling argument for Python, while this one seems to really push the bounds of what qualifies as an open source license... (it also seems to imply that Python is a trademark, which is, as far as I can tell, is not true at this time. and archive corporation/seagate already owns the trademark wrt. software). the worst thing is that we will have to run this by our lawyers before we can decide whether to continue contributing to 1.6 development :-( </F>

M.-A. Lemburg

5:05 a.m.

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

...

...
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.

same here. reading the new one made me feel very uneasy, but I cannot really say much about it before I've discussed it with people who know more about this...

Dito. Some comments: """ 4.Licensee may not use CNRI trademarks or trade name, including Python or CNRI, in a trademark sense to endorse or promote products or services of Licensee, or any third party. Licensee may use the mark Python in connection with Licensee's derivative versions that are based on or incorporate the Software, but only in the form "Python-based ___________________," or equivalent. """ Say I want to sell Python 1.6 training, how would I promote this ? Since I'm not producing a derivative work, I guess I couldn't use the name 'Python' at all... hmm, I could probably try Pyth*n ;-) """ 3.In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or incorporates the Software or any part thereof, and wants to make the derivative work available to the public as provided herein, then Licensee hereby agrees to indicate in any such work, in a prominently visible way, the nature of the modifications made to CNRI's Software. """ How explicit would that indication have to be ? E.g. do I have to provide a patch or would a simple run-down of new features suffice ? Needless to say, I would not be able to sell products based on Python 1.6 with the revocation clause in the license. In the end, I'd probably have to negotiate a separate license with CNRI not having this clause. Anything else would be unacceptable in a commercial setting. Is this intended ? And finally in the "Python Contribution Agreement": """ Licensee confirms to CNRI that, to the best of Licensee's knowledge and belief, the Contribution is free of any claims of parties other than Licensee under copyright, patent or other rights or interests ("claims"). """ Best knowledge and belief do not guard against law suit. Why doesn't this text protect the contributor in some way against charges forwarded by CNRI to the contributor ? (Note that the disclaimer in the Python License is not valid everywhere.) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 107 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

James C. Ahlstrom

7:20 a.m.

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

Fredrik Lundh

7:39 a.m.

...

The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you can't use it in a trademark sense.

quick check: which of these uses "Python" in a trademark sense, and thus violates the license: pythonware? professional python services? pythonworks? programming python? python training? python powered? the viper python implementation? python imaging library? wxpython? pythonwin? etc. all of them? none of them? </F>

M.-A. Lemburg

8:09 a.m.

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

...

...
The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you can't use it in a trademark sense.

quick check: which of these uses "Python" in a trademark sense, and thus violates the license:

pythonware? professional python services? pythonworks? programming python? python training? python powered? the viper python implementation? python imaging library? wxpython? pythonwin? etc.

all of them? none of them?

Using a word in a trademark sense usually simply means using it in corporate relationships (at least that's how it works in Germany). If you are a company and talk about, write about or otherwise use the word in a commercial context then you are using the word in a trademark sense. There are several ways to declare a trademark, e.g. there are word marks, logo marks, sound marks, color marks etc. (don't know if these are the right translations). A word mark, for example, refers to a specific spelling of the word regardeless of the font, style or color. Logo marks refer to a specific design including font, style and color. Note that a trademark owner can still give you permission to use the mark in any decent way without paying fees or royalties. So even if CNRI does own the mark, they could still make it usable by others. In fact, if done right, this is a Good Thing. The answer to your question depends on what kind mark CNRI owns. [There currently is a very strong movement in Germany against people who are applying what they learned from domain grabbing to trademarks. Prominent examples include "WWW" and "Webspace". Even the color violet is trademarked (by a company producing chocolate)] -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Y2000: 107 days left Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

David Ascher

noon

Guido, maybe it would make sense to explain the need for a license change. Is my understanding correct that the occasion for the license change is that the copyright is now clearly shifting to CNRI, and as a result CNRI has to forge a license? (BTW, I thought *you* had the copyright transfer from CWI, not CNRI). --david

Guido van Rossum

1:43 p.m.

[David Ascher]

...

Guido, maybe it would make sense to explain the need for a license change. Is my understanding correct that the occasion for the license change is that the copyright is now clearly shifting to CNRI, and as a result CNRI has to forge a license? (BTW, I thought *you* had the copyright transfer from CWI, not CNRI).

Correct on both counts. CWI owns the copyright on old Python versions through Python 1.2. I have personally obtained non-exclusive rights to these from CWI. CNRI, by nature of my employment contract, has the copyright on newer versions. CNRI feels the need to protect its intellectual property rights. It feels that the old Python license, even with CNRI added, does not adequately protect CNRI against certain (unlikely) events -- hence the desire to draft a new license. 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. I think that the main problem is that CNRI's understanding of what truly constritutes open source is limited, and that my own understanding of legal issues is limited, so that the negotiations with CNRI's legal department (which is headed by CNRI's director) often turn in their favor. I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it. The CWI ownership of much of the code probably means that the license as it stands doesn't hold anyway. I also think that the Python consortium has a say in the license discussion -- the consortium agreement actually discusses the ownership of intellectual property produced by/for the consortium at some length. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Mark Hammond

8:20 p.m.

...

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.

Greg Stein

8:37 p.m.

Mark Hammond wrote:

...

... 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.

Interesting thought!

...

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.

Because of these varied interests, I don't think a review by a particular lawyer will be greatly helpful. The question will still remain: "did the lawyer review it from [my/our/company] perspective?" This will lead people back into the same review cycle.

...

... 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?

Definitely having an OSI certification will be great (cool stuff on the cert for the existing license!). Having Bruce Perens review the license would also be a great boon (see www.perens.com for some of his writings; also see http://perens.com/Termination.html specifically). Licenses are a tough issue. I had to go through this entire morass when deciding what to do with mod_dav. There are a lot of varieties and issues and stuff to cover. I've read a bunch of license (not to mention a bazillion legal documents during the eShop/acquisition days). Not always exciting reading :-), but usually quite interesting. At this point, I think it is a great thing that CNRI is reviewing the license. Unfortunately, the license wasn't as non-controversial as it was thought to be :-(. I'm more than happy to wait and see where they go with the license. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Barry A. Warsaw

16 Sep 16 Sep

10:37 a.m.

...

...
...
...
...
"GS" == Greg Stein writes:

GS> Definitely having an OSI certification will be great (cool GS> stuff on the cert for the existing license!). Having Bruce GS> Perens review the license would also be a great boon (see GS> www.perens.com for some of his writings; also see GS> http://perens.com/Termination.html specifically). Interesting article, but IBM's termination clause was different than the JPython one. I fought hard on para7 because IIRC, RMS complained that an earlier version /could/ have been used to arbitrarily terminate. I think the current JPython para7 is better because /you/ have to materially breach, which seems like a much higher threshold. But it still may not be perfect. Aside: don't necessarily think I'm a grinning fan and defender of the JPython license. It's a huge win over what we had before, and I think it's good enough that nearly anybody who wants to do Real Things with JPython, now can. I've had only one question about the license since it was published and that was about the "displayed prominently" clause (i.e. was it okay to include the alternative handle text in an "about" menu pulldown? That seemed prominent enough to my nonlawyerly brain.) I'm glad to see the Python community push hard for the "other side's viewpoint" with reasoned and rational arguments. I think that such responses from Influential Python Users will provide us with useful ammunition when we re-evaluate the licenses. It means that ultimately we'll have the right license for Python (and JPython). Thanks, -Barry

Greg Stein

12:27 p.m.

Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

...

... Interesting article, but IBM's termination clause was different than the JPython one. I fought hard on para7 because IIRC, RMS complained that an earlier version /could/ have been used to arbitrarily terminate. I think the current JPython para7 is better because /you/ have to materially breach, which seems like a much higher threshold. But it still may not be perfect.

Yes, I was aware that it was a reactive termination, rather than arbitrary. That makes it quite acceptable, but it still isn't a desirable thing. Especially given some of the grey area in the license ("are we sure we aren't in breach of the license?"). Personally, I'd rather see a license without a termination clause. If it must be there, then I'd like to see it as tight as possible (see the IBM and Apple licenses: IIRC, they only kick in when the user initiates patent litigation against IBM/Apple; the termination cuts them off as an initial response to the suit). The other elements I raised actually caused me more anxiety than the termination. If CNRI finds it acceptable, I'd recommend they use an existing OSD license. They get immediate certfication and, more importantly, a builtin awareness in the open source community of what the license really means. Each time a new license arrives in the community, bunches of people have to go an figure it out; if the new license is the IBM Public License with a search/replace on the company and product name, then people go "oh. all righty. no problem." and move on to doing real stuff. Dang. I keep replying to this stuff. :-) I'm hoping that we wrap this up pending a new release. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

David Ascher

15 Sep 15 Sep

11:19 p.m.

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Mark Hammond wrote:

...

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?

Eric Raymond's wife is a lawyer, I believe =).

Jean-Claude Wippler

16 Sep 16 Sep

4:48 a.m.

Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it.

One more consideration: some people may compare the "scariness" of the Python license against, say, the Tcl license - and choose accordingly. It's not even about content: seeing that new license, or the Perl licenses for that matter, it sends out a strong message IMO: you are entering the world of lawyers. Proceed with caution. Guard dogs. -- Jean-Claude

Vladimir Marangozov

17 Sep 17 Sep

10:07 a.m.

Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it.

So, in the end, am I still invited to sign & send the "wet" form or I'd better wait to let it dry? BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today. -- Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252

Guido van Rossum

9:07 a.m.

...

So, in the end, am I still invited to sign & send the "wet" form or I'd better wait to let it dry?

Please send in the form -- the license was a totally separate issue that I shouldn't have brought up in the same mail (or at all, in this stage anyway -- we'll work this out with the Python consortium members first).

...

BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today.

Unfortunately, that's the price we have to pay. What we get is legal protection from CNRI. In general CNRI has contributed a lot to Python; probably more than you realize. In any case, signing the form and including the email paragraphs is completely voluntary -- if you don't want to do it, just let me know. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Vladimir Marangozov

10:35 a.m.

Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

Please send in the form -- the license was a totally separate issue that I shouldn't have brought up in the same mail (or at all, in this stage anyway -- we'll work this out with the Python consortium members first).

ok.

...

...
BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today.

Unfortunately, that's the price we have to pay. What we get is legal protection from CNRI. In general CNRI has contributed a lot to Python; probably more than you realize.

I realize that. But I also realize that in case of a problem, the wet form protects CNRI, not the contributor. Hm. And what happens if you get hit by a bus? Or in 100 years when we'll dance with angels in Paradise? Will Python stay bound to CNRI with little legal possibilities to detach it, in case our successors (or you) start working in another organization? IANAL and curious. -- Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252

Fred L. Drake, Jr.

9:41 a.m.

Vladimir Marangozov writes:

...

BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today.

You shouldn't be; the FSF certainly requires a signed copyright assignment from contributors. I had to sign one for a bunch of patches I made to oleo many years ago. It was a minor nuissance, but that's all. (The *sad* part is that there hasn't been a new release of oleo that could have included the patches for five years! ;) Just noticed that there is a release at ftp.gnu.org now; I'll have to take a look! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. Corporation for National Research Initiatives

Tim Peters

18 Sep 18 Sep

1:38 a.m.

[Vladimir Marangozov]

...

BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code.

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]

...

You shouldn't be; the FSF certainly requires a signed copyright assignment from contributors. I had to sign one for a bunch of patches I made to oleo many years ago. It was a minor nuissance, but that's all.

Except they add up: year after year, a new batch of stupid little requirements piles up on top of the last year's, and it's a ratchet effect -- always more, never less. The aggregate gets to be a real weariness on the soul. I had to laugh when François Pinard happened to post this on c.l.py today:

...

... Would it be any volunteer, at least for taking care of filling the FSF papers, if any are needed? I filled more than enough of those in my life, I prefer to avoid the burden.

Ask Barry how many years we've been trying to sign pymode over to the FSF <0.5 wink>. [Vlad]

...

If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today.

I sympathize, but that's really hard to say. You don't get pig-biting weary of this crap until you're my age <wink>. AFAIK, Berkeley has never beed sued over the BSD license, MIT over the X license, or the U of Arizona over the Icon license (none, really -- Icon is in the public domain). All the legal mumbo jumbo in the "modern" licenses is like wearing garlic around your neck to ward off vampires: the threat isn't real, and if it were it wouldn't do you any good anyway. a-wooden-stake-thru-the-heart-is-your-only-true-defense-ly y'rs - tim

Barry A. Warsaw

17 Sep 17 Sep

11:30 a.m.

...

...
...
...
...
"VM" == Vladimir Marangozov writes:

VM> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world VM> I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send VM> e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such VM> constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they VM> are today. Note that the FSF has been requiring signatures for a long time. Actually, their requirements are IMHO more onerous because they require you to assign your copyrights to the FSF. Their lawyers have told them that they cannot defend the copyright of, e.g. Emacs, unless they own the copyrights to the entire codebase (or at least, anything that they couldn't rip out, throw away, and not completely cripple the application). CNRI's viewpoint is less drastic, but still important. It means that you retain the copyright on the code (good for you), but you give us permission to use it as we see fit (good for us /and/ for you :). Otherwise, it would be possible for a malicious person to contribute something really vital and useful, wait for it to become indispensible, and then say, "oops, we really didn't mean to let you use that code, sorry!" -Barry

Greg Stein

5:14 p.m.

Vladimir Marangozov wrote:

...

... BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they are today.

Actually, this isn't surprising at all. The Free Software Foundation *requires* this kind of thing to be filed with them before you contribute code to the FSF. Essentially, it is a way for the FSF (and CNRI) to legally state that they own the copyright on the particular code. Without that, the contributor could come along later and claim a copyright on the code. The IBM folks who are working on Apache have provided legal releases to the Apache Software Foundation that basically states that IBM won't try to assume any rights under copyright law on the code they contribute to Apache. In fact, every time that I receive a patch for my mod_dav Apache module, the IBM guy attaches a release to the email that has the patch. In a pure, cooperative, world none of this would be necessary. However, the world simply doesn't work that way and all this stuff (licenses, copyrights, releases) is there to prevent Bad Things from happening. It isn't evil in itself, but simply a reflection of the business environment and the society that we're working within. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mark Hammond

14 Sep 14 Sep

7:49 p.m.

...

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.

Tim Peters

15 Sep 15 Sep

12:40 a.m.

I dislike the new license. Selling Python at work wasn't easy, but the short & straightforward CWI license went a *long* way toward convincing the suits there was little to worry about. The new license has several blobs of lawyer-speak that ensure the next battle will be much harder -- the prospect of license revocation, some fuzzy concept of derivative works, and vague "prominent display" requirements? Boston lawyers charge Really Big Bux to guess what that gibberish might mean in Virginia. The only bright side is that we now get explicit rights to "perform" and "display" Python .

...

If you believe that special circumstances exist that make it impossible or difficult for you to sign the form, please send me email, and we'll discuss the matter.

It would less hassle for me if you took all my contributions out <0.9 wink>. i'll-sign-but-it's-really-really-really-depressing-ly y'rs - tim

ping＠lfw.org

2:31 a.m.

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

8984

Age (days ago)

8988

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

30 comments

14 participants

participants (14)

Barry A. Warsaw
David Ascher
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
Fredrik Lundh
Greg Stein
Greg Ward
Guido van Rossum
James C. Ahlstrom
Jean-Claude Wippler
M.-A. Lemburg
Mark Hammond
ping＠lfw.org
Tim Peters
Vladimir Marangozov

License cleanup

Guido van Rossum

Guido van Rossum

Barry A. Warsaw

Barry A. Warsaw

Greg Ward

M.-A. Lemburg

James C. Ahlstrom

M.-A. Lemburg

David Ascher

Guido van Rossum

Barry A. Warsaw

David Ascher

Jean-Claude Wippler

Vladimir Marangozov

Guido van Rossum

Vladimir Marangozov

Barry A. Warsaw

ping＠lfw.org

tags

participants (14)