Licensing Status of Python 1.5

[Tim Peters]

[Pat McCann <thisis at bboogguusss.org>]
> (All my non-legal-advice opinion:)
>
> Calling itself a license would be irrelevant (except at a lower-level
> need to ape all legal forms).  The words need to make an offer of
> contract which will be in effect when accepted by licensee (some places
> (where?) require "consideration" to be exchanged).

Matches my understanding, but asserting a thing doesn't make it so, whether
it's me goofing, or you posting confidently from a bogus address <wink>.

> ...
> I'm glad you found that.  I hope the situation hasn't changed since 1856.
>
> Google found it at http://www.alaska.net/~winter/bouvier1856_license.html

I don't save URLs, but that does look familiar.  As you say, an
"interesting" page.  Found a bunch!  Here's one you'll like:

    A bare license in the beginning can become irrevocable when the
    licensee acting upon the license executes a work of a permanent
    character and incurs expenses in doing so.

However, IIRC, that was on a page about laws in India.  Not that anything
anyone does in the computer biz is "of a permanent character" anyway <0.9
wink>.

> (I found http://www.alaska.net/~winter/ quite interesting too.  And it
> has other law dictionaries and stuff a Patriot might find interesting.
> BTW, that same page link above says if I open my door, the knocker has
> an implied license to enter my house (only until I revoke it, I hope).)

I saw that specific claim several other places too, and indeed to illustrate
the at-will nature of a "bare" license.  IANAL, and hope that those who are
have a stock of more useful examples someplace I haven't yet stumbled into.

> If I had no MyPython before I saw the CWI license, I wouldn't I be in
> the same situation after it was revoked?

If this line has any value at all, I expect it varies from case to case.
For example, my former employer embedded Python in some products.  If their
license were to be revoked, they would certainly suffer financial damage,
and "placing the other side in the same situation in which he stood before
he entered on its execution" should at least mean compensating them for the
expenses they incurred in deploying Python.

I think one thing *is* certain:  if CNRI decided to claim releases of Python
prior to 1.6 could no longer be used, CNRI would find itself in so many
deep-pocket lawsuits the next day they'd soon go out of business (as a
tax-exempt "public charity", their IRS form 990s are available upon request,
and from those it's easy to find out just how much justice they can afford
<0.5 wink>).  However, CNRI has never given any indication that they would
even *consider* doing something like that!  It would not only be out of
character, it would be suicidal.  So, to me, this is just another instance
of bascially silly Usenet speculation.

> But I suspect you're right about there being limits to revocation.

IANAL!  I have no idea.

but-wouldn't-fear-testing-it-in-court-either-ly y'rs  - tim