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

[Gary Momarison]

Someone wrote:

> 2. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, CNRI
> hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, world-wide
> license to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or display publicly,
> prepare derivative works, distribute, and otherwise use Python 1.6b1
> alone or in any derivative version, provided, however, that CNRI's
> License Agreement is retained in Python 1.6b1, alone or in any
> derivative version prepared by Licensee.

I see a show stopper there.  Well, I think it SHOULD be a showstopper,
but I doubt that it will be.

That "...provided, however, that CNRI's License Agreement is retained"
clause looks deadly to me.  If a derivative work retains that
License while also getting some new License which most people would
want to apply, then conflicts seem inevitable.

For example, say I want to use some Python function in the interpreter
of my own new-and-improved language which I want to license as a
binaary under royalty to BigCorp.  So now the derivative work carries 
two licenses, one which says royalty-free and one the opposite.

Or, say I just want to modify the syntax a little to create my new
Cobra language to license for royalties or release without source or
whatever.  Same problem.

Some will say that if "A" licenses some rights over code to the
public (say "B" and "C") like this license does, then "B" can then 
license a derivative to "C" with his new license covering only his 
work.

Others will say that "B" can license the derivative as long as he
satisfies the original license by retaining that license (for
historical purposes only?) and as long as his new license doesn't
try to give away more rights than the original did.

Both of these rationalizations seem bogus for reasons I'm too lazy
to go into now.  I'll just say that I too would like them to be
reasonable, but I see no legal justification.  There is a whole
other line of discussion regarding derivatives and the separation
of differently-licensed code, but, again, it's too much for now.

But I ask this: What does "is retained" mean?  What are the
implications?  By what legal theory do licenses "stack"?
If the derivative retains the original license which gives me
a right, why must I observe some other license which trys to
take it away?  I have no way of knowing what code is original
and which is not.

P.S. The old Python and X11 licenses have the same problem. The BSD 
license might leave a loophole.  It seems that people have "known"
what the licensors "meant" to imply by these and nobody has cared
to get finicky lawyers to be nasty about these licenses. And I
know enough about lawyers to know that most of them don't bother
thinking through an issue if nobody else is worring about it.

P.P.S. Please don't tell me that Clause 2 above is OK with RMS.
I've read that and it seems irrelevant without an explanation
that addresses my concern.  I care about what courts will think 
first, then what the Python owners think, and THEN what some 
derivative licensor (which could be me or RMS) might think.
And, of course, I care what you think.