[Python-Dev] License() release list is imcomplete; intentional?

[Guido van Rossum]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

> Le Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:37:48 -0400,
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> a écrit :
>
> > On 2.7, >>> license() return a text that includes a complete list of
> > releases from 1.6 to 2.7 and stops there
> >      Release         Derived     Year        Owner       GPL-
> >                      from                                compatible?
> > (1)
> >
> >      0.9.0 thru 1.2              1991-1995   CWI         yes
> >      1.3 thru 1.5.2  1.2         1995-1999   CNRI        yes
> >      1.6             1.5.2       2000        CNRI        no
> >      2.0             1.6         2000        BeOpen.com  no
> > ...
> >      2.6.5           2.6.4       2010        PSF         yes
> >      2.7             2.6         2010        PSF         yes
> >
> > Was it intentional to stop with 2.7 and not continue with 2.7.1, etc?
> >
> > On 3.3.2, the 2.x list ends with 2.6.5 and never mentions 2.7.
> > Intentional? It then jumps back to 3.0 and ends with the 'previous'
> > release, 3.3.1. Should 3.3.2 be included in the 3.3.2 list?
> >
> > ...
> >      2.6.4           2.6.3       2009        PSF         yes
> >      2.6.5           2.6.4       2010        PSF         yes
> >      3.0             2.6         2008        PSF         yes
> >      3.0.1           3.0         2009        PSF         yes
> > ...
> >      3.2.4           3.2.3       2013        PSF         yes
> >      3.3.0           3.2         2012        PSF         yes
> >      3.3.1           3.3.0       2013        PSF         yes
>
> I don't really understand why the releases should be manually listed.
> Is it some kind of defensive coding?
>

Worse, it's superstition based on myth.

IIRC this table was added when a few core Python developers including
myself left CNRI in 2000. We had a bit of an argument about the license
(not too much though -- in the end things came out alright). Some lawyer at
CNRI thought it was a good idea to record a release history like this with
the license, as a defense against whatever claims of ownership to the code
someone else might suddenly come up with. Since all I wanted was to get out
of there while causing them minimal upset, I told them I'd comply. But
that's over 13 years ago now, and I'm not sure if it ever made sense (the
internet is a different place than CNRI's lawyers envisioned). Only the top
10 of so lines of the table are in the least interesting (note that it
describes a graph). I propose that we truncate the table and add a note
saying that all following releases are owned by the PSF, GPL-compatible,
and derived from previous PSF-owned and GPL-compatible releases. That
should do until the PSF goes out of business (which I hope will never
happen -- this is one reason why I wish the conferences were run by a
separate entity, to avoid a conference bankruptcy from risking Python's
continued open-source status).

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20130917/1a267881/attachment.html>