Licensing Status of Python 1.5

[Tim Peters]

[Mike Fletcher, with an entertaining and passionate plea for
 sanity in the face of legal shenanigans]
> ...
> If I release something with a notice saying "hey, this stuff's
> free for the using, here's the license", then later say "hey, I
> know you've just spent 10 years working on this project, but,
> that's not a valid license, and we're withholding licensing from
> you", common sense (not big in legal circles, I know) would seem
> to say "sue the jerk for bait-and-switch or fraud or whatever the
> current legal phrase is".  A judge who allows that kind of stuff
> is likely still a little too connected to the law-for-law's sake
> state of mind to be sitting on a bench.

Unfortunately, most judges are-- by definition --below average <wink>.  The
idea of this getting to court actually strikes me as funny, but it's not
prudent to say so.

Part of the problem with the CWI text is apparently that it never *called*
itself "a license".  The link to the CWI copyright text has vanished from
the python.org homepage, but the text is still on the website:

    http://python.org/doc/Copyright.html

That it doesn't identify itself as "a license" via Jurisprudently Approved
mumbo jumbo, coupled with its utter lack of restrictions on users,
apparently makes it fall into a class of thingie some lawyers believe can be
unilaterally withdrawn at will by the licensor.  OTOH, it's not hard to find
blather that doesn't play along with that, even when it's 100% clear that
the license was intended to be revocable (e.g., "A bare license ... being
without consideration, may be revoked at pleasure, as long as it remains
executory; 39 Hen. VI. M. 12, page 7; but when carried into effect, either
partially or altogether, it can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will
admit of revocation, by placing the other side in the same situation in
which he stood before he entered on its execution. 8 East, R. 308; Palm. 71;
S. C. Poph. 151; S. C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152." yadda yadda yadda).

My aborted foray into legal weeds ended on a high note, when I bumped into
question #58 in the U.S. Copyright Office's FAQ:

    http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.html#q58

    58. How do I protect my sighting of Elvis?

    Copyright law does not protect sightings. However, copyright law
    will protect your photo (or other depiction) of your sighting of
    Elvis. Just send it to us with a form VA application and the $30
    filing fee. No one can lawfully use your photo of your sighting,
    although someone else may file his own photo of his sighting.
    Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of
    the photograph.

I suppose I should establish the basis for a "fair use" defense should they
come after me for quoting that here:  wonderful example of our taxpayer
dollars at work <wink>!

> ...
> And here I'd thought I'd avoid responding to this issue...

Easier said than done, eh?

like-averting-ones-eyes-from-a-trainwreck-ly y'rs  - tim