[docs] [issue14759] Is LICENSES.txt up to date?
report at bugs.python.org
Thu May 10 02:29:07 CEST 2012
Jeff Laing <jefflaing at gmail.com> added the comment:
@Jesús, as has been pointed out already, the Berkeley DB stuff is not part of Python 3 so I don't see any point in discussing this with Oracle.
We don't actually use or need the bsddb module, it's just part of the standard runtime library that we ship.
We will be removing the bsddb module from our distribution of the runtime library, while our app is embedding the 2.7 interpreter. Once we go to 3.0, the problem becomes moot.
When discussing issues related to licensing, a visible audit trail is essential to show that one followed a genuine process in a timely fashion. When the lawyers come howling to our door, I want to be able to point at archived documentation that showed we were not knowingly continuing to violate a license condition once we became aware of it.
With respect to mail.python.org mailing lists, the http://docs.python.org/bugs.html page explicitly says "if you want a more persistent record of your issue, you can use the issue tracker for documentation bugs as well". That suggested to me that there were more than just "developers" listening here.
I feel like it's getting a bit meta if I raise an issue here requesting that the website be clarified to note that the documentors don't really look at issues here.
Thanks to all, my immediate problem is resolved, and I now know that I need to dig a lot deeper into all the documentation each time we upgrade, rather than assume that it's all consistent.
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
More information about the docs