[Python-Dev] LICENSE file in Python 2.0c1

[Guido van Rossum]

> > > Such a note is nice and short, but not legally binding and
> > > confusing since it is not clear whether the "handle" for the
> > > document will always return the same license text or if it
> > > will return a license text at all.
> > 
> > Why do you say it's not legally binding?  The CNRI license explicitly
> > allows you to use this exact text instead of including the whole CNRI
> > license.
> 
> Sure, but not including the verbatim text will produce an
> unpleasent feeling of not being sure about the completeness
> of the license text.
> 
> <nitpicker-suite>
> 
> In a law suit the above construct would
> certainly not hold, since URLs only describe the location of
> information and don't hold any information about the validity
> or origin of it. The situation would be a little better if CNRI
> had provided a PGP signature or fingerprint of the license,
> since this is (in some countries) a legally accepted way of
> determining those two criteria.
> 
> Just a side note: the URL given for the license results in a 
> redirect to a different URL -
> http://www.handle.net/python_licenses/python1.6_9-5-00.html
> (note the date !): this doesn't really give the impression of
> persistent unchangeable information.
> 
> </nitpicker-suite>

Funny...  I agree that's not very confidence-inspiring.  CNRI always
advertises handles as better than URLs for long-term persistent
documents, but it's clear that they didn't think of this!  Or maybe
(warning: fake conspiracy theory ahead :-) they intend to change the
license terms after the fact...

> Not that there's much to fear about... but why add any extra areas
> of uncertainty ?

Agreed.  I'll add the full text back in.

> > I was just trying to save space.  ActivePython does the same thing as
> > far as I remember.
> 
> Space?... the download is 3.9 Megs ;-)

I meant less text for the reader to wade through.  But you've
convinced me already.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)