[docs] [issue14759] Berkeley DB License conditions are onerous (and poorly documented)

[Jeff Laing]

Jeff Laing <jefflaing at gmail.com> added the comment:

With all due respect, I think that the 2.7.3 License Page is still being actively used by people as a reference, and it should be accurate. I agree that the code developers can't do anything, but the documentation for all releases, particularly in such a sensitive area as licensing, should be as up to date as possible.

Similarly, the 3.0 License page talks about a "_random" module which presumably is going ahead.  It has a license agreement displayed on the web page but I did not see that text copied into the regular LICENSE.txt that is part of the Python3 distribution, and that I assume meets the "supporting documentation" clause that all the module licenses seem to demand.

Ditto socket.
Ditto asyncore and asynchat.
Ditto Cookie.
Ditto trace.
Ditto xmlrpclib.
etcetera.

I agree this is all a documentation exercise - perhaps there is another bug tracker I should be reporting it in?

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue14759>
_______________________________________