Python 2.0b1 is released!
breiter at usf.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE
Thu Sep 7 11:41:04 CEST 2000
In article <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCOEIHHEAA.tim_one at email.msn.com>,
"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> writes:
> [Guido, on the 2.0b1 release]
>>> There's one bit of sad news: according to Richard Stallman, this
>>> version is no more compatible with the GPL than version 1.6
> [Bernhard Reiter]
>> Please make sure that this is resolved soon and python will be GPL
>> compatible. Otherwise python will loose a lot of attraction for the
>> free software community.
> Bernhard (and everyone else as concered about GPL compatibility as we are!):
> Please understand that we've (BeOpen.com) done all that we can now -- I'm
> afraid it's out of our hands.
I know the situation, but this political question of course still is
partly in our hands. Right now I cannot recommend the use of the new
python if this situation prevails. I would have peferred not to
release python 1.6 or 2.0b1 and blame CNRI for the situation.
It looks a little bit like the people behind the release are not
_that_ concerned about it anymore. A non-GPL compatible python is a
disaster and this is grave for python and BeOpen.
I admit, these are hard words. Please do not feel offended.
My intention here is to stress again, that this is not just a minor
glitch in the license.
> There is something *you* can do, though: tell CNRI how important Python's
> GPL-compatibility is to you, and also tell the FSF! They're the ones who
> have to reach agreement here.
>From my (limited) knowledge of the story I give CNRI the blame.
The FSF stood for the same stable goals for a long time.
They have to make sure that this is not a big testcase to bring in
the US contract law into free software (which relyed on copyright law).
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
More information about the Python-list