Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Suchandra Thapa]

Charles Hixson <charleshixsn at earthlink.net> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------83370A927A88A9B99456E9A8
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Suchandra Thapa wrote:
>
>> ...
>> >Can you spell UCITA?  Sure, I knew you could.
>>
>>     From my understanding, CNRI is located in Virginia and so it makes sense
>> for them to want the license to be interpeted under the laws of the state
>> they're in.  I really don't think that this is a plot to use UCITA to carry
>> out some underhanded scheme.  I would be more worried if CNRI wanted their
>> license to be interpeted under some state that they have no connection with.
>
>It doesn't need to be a plot today.  It could be a plot 5 years from now.
>Remember the .gif affair?  Current practices and intentions cannot be reliably
>projected into the future, no matter what the intention of the current holder
>is.  UCITA is poisonous.  It may be convenient for them, but West Virginia
>isn't far away, or North Carolina.  Either of those may, of course, pass
>something like UCITA in the future.  But they haven't yet, so a contract agreed
>to now wouldn't contain the [characterization deleted].
>
    
    It doesn't matter whether UCITA isn't in north carolina or west virginia
since if it is passed, UCITA would be applicable to the interpetation of the
license.  But having the license interpeted under another state's laws isn't
without costs also.  They would need to get legal counsel tha is familiar with
the laws of whatever state they decided on and would probably need to pursue
any violations of the license in the state whose laws applies.  This may 
involve retaining another firm to litigate in the other state. Also CNRI would
have a more difficult time keeping track of the litigation since face to face
meetings would involve traveling to another state.  And this whole exercise
becomes moot if the other state passes UCITA.
    Since CNRI is already spending money in having their legal counsel try to
work with the FSF and Stallman to work out any incompatibilities between the
python license and gpl, it seems ungrateful to now require CNRI to potentially
retain another legal counsel and to open them up to the possibility of 
carrying out litigation in another state.  CNRI's reason for adding the clause
about the license interpetation was probably to make sure that clauses in the 
license wouldn't be invalidated due to another state's laws and so that they 
and their current legal counsel could assess potential license violations and 
if need be remedy them in court.