[Python-Dev] Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Guido van Rossum]

> > > ... it seems 2.0 can reuse the CWI license after all ;-)
> > 
> > I'm not sure why you think that: 2.0 is a derivative version and is
> > thus bound by the CNRI license as well as by the license that BeOpen
> > adds.
> 
> If you interpret the above wording in the sense of "preparing
> a derivative version of the License Agreement", BeOpen (or
> anyone else) could just remove the CNRI License text. I
> understand that this is not intended (that's why I put the smiley
> there ;-).

Please forget this interpretation! :-)

> I haven't found an English version of the German law text,
> but this is the title of the law which handles German
> business conditions:
> 
> "Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen
> AGBG) - Act Governing Standard Business Conditions"
>  
> The relevant paragraph is no. 11 (10).
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know:
> terms generally excluding liability are invalid; liability
> may be limited during the first 6 months after license
> agreement and excluded after this initial period.
> 
> Anyway, you're right in that the notice about the paragraph
> not necessarily applying to the licensee only has informational
> character and that it doesn't do any harm otherwise.

OK, we'll just let this go.

> > It's better not to violate the license.  But do you really think that
> > they would go after you immediately if you show good intentions to
> > rectify?
> 
> I don't intend to violate the license, but customers of 
> an application embedding Python will have to agree to the
> Python license to be able to legally use the Python engine
> embedded in the application -- that is: if the application
> unintensionally fails to meet the CNRI license terms
> then the application as a whole would immediately become
> unusable by the customer.
> 
> Now just think of an eCommerce application which produces
> some $100k USD revenue each day... such a customer wouldn't
> like these license terms at all :-(

That depends.  Unintentional failure to meet the license terms seems
unlikely to me considering that the license doesn't impose a lot of
requirments.  It's vague in its definitions, but I think that works in
your advantage.

> BTW, I think that section 6. can be removed altogether, if
> it doesn't include any reference to such a 30-60 day period:
> the permissions set forth in a license are only valid in case
> the license terms are adhered to whether it includes such
> a section or not.

Try to explain that to a lawyer. :)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)