Python 2.0b1 is released!
Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
Sat Sep 9 00:17:52 CEST 2000
As I understand it, the situation is this.
1 CNRI wants the applicable law specified, to make sure
they don't get sued in unpredictable ways.
2 RMS wants the applicable law not specified, because
as it stands it would have to apply to the GPL as
well, and that's (allegedly) something that can't
So what's wrong with these possibilities?
a Amend the licence so that it says "The disclaimer
of liability in section 18.104.22.168 shall be interpreted
according to the law of the state of Virginia" or
b Amend the licence so that it says "This license
shall be interpreted according to the law of the
state of Virginia, except that this shall not apply
to the provisions of the GNU General Public Licence
unless it would do so in the absence of this paragraph."
c Some other intermediate stipulation, like "Paragraphs
1 through 12 of this license shall be interpreted
according to the law of the state of Virginia" where
those are in fact all the paragraphs of the licence
(the point being to make it more explicit that there's
no attempt to have the GPL interpreted under Virginian
The wording in each case is certainly broken; I'm
not a lawyer. But I think the point stands, namely
that the stuff CNRI want to be protected (by being
interpreted under Virginian law) and the stuff RMS
wants to be protected (by not having whose law it's
to be interpreted under spelt out) are disjoint.
So (he said, naively) it ought to be possible to
protect both at once by being careful about exactly
what the specification applies to and what it doesn't.
Now, the people involved in this are not stupid, so
presumably there's a good reason why this sort of thing
can't be made to work. Can someone explain what that
good reason is?
 I'd prefer "This licence", but one must be realistic. :-)
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
sig under construction
More information about the Python-list