[Guido]

Tim Peters knows more, you just have to ask the right way. :-)

[Mark Hammond]

Tim - tell us about your testicles again!

Is-that-correct-ly,

Works for me. I had thought they were permanently enlarged, but I detect signs that, should the temperature in Virginia ever fall below 80F, and the relative humidity below a gazillion or two percent, they may return to a familiar state. I grew up in a cold climate, and this may just be a bizarre attempt to shed excess heat. I expect to set up a home page soon with a charming and practical photographic essay on this topic <wink>. As to the Python license, Guido said

We expect that this wrinkle will be worked out with CNRI's president Bob Kahn on Monday.

and given the history of this I'd rather wait until then to see whether expectations pan out -- and discussing the license before we're allowed to *show* it would be frustrating for everyone anyway. That said, this is certainly a harder license for a non-lawyer to understand than was the CWI license, but I expect CNRI would counter that their license is more likely than CWI's to stand up in court. If such things interest you, feel free to speculate <wink>. Some things *everyone* should agree are good: + Eric Raymond informed us that the board of the Open Source Initiative had voted to certify the license as fully Open Source compliant. http://www.opensource.org/osd.html That was a happy day! But it's already become a slightly different license than they voted on, so I bet we have to seek OSI certification again. + I've seen Richard Stallman's remaining objections, and they're of a technical nature (meaning that to BeOpen PythonLabs they don't seem like they *should* be a sticking point; but CNRI may not agree). As many dozens of current Python projects rely on GPL compatibility, BeOpen will not accept a license that RMS rejects (and, I'll add, he's made the *reasons* for his objections clear, and has gone the extra mile to suggest specific changes). + My previous employers used Python in proprietary ("closed source") ways, and I *believe* the proposed license still allows that. But there are new (relative to the CWI Python license) requirements, and I don't understand what some of the license text means, so don't take my guess on that! Anyone who intends using Python 1.6 or beyond in proprietary ways would be well advised to have their lawyers study the license carefully, as no party to this negotiation was in your shoes or visibly (to me) looking out for you. (And, no, I was not a party to any of it) + There is still no clause specifically prohibiting ActiveState from using Python <wink>. Or anyone else. ordered-the-champagne-but-not-drinking-it-yet-ly y'rs - tim