Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Gareth McCaughan]

Tim Peters wrote:

> >   a Amend the licence so that it says "The disclaimer
> >     of liability in section 1.2.3.4 shall be interpreted
> >     according to the law of the state of Virginia" or
> >     whatever.
> 
> The FSF appears to believe that any choice-of-law provision whatsoever is in
> conflict w/ GPL 2, no matter how hedged.

Even if that choice-of-law provision is explicitly stated
not to apply to the GPL? I'm increasingly glad not to be
a lawyer. :-)

> >   b Amend the licence so that it says "This license[1]
> >     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."
> 
> How does this protect CNRI?  They're still the source of the software,
> regardless of which license applies.  Liability is liability, and they're on
> the hook whether it's their license or the GPL that applies.  Their lawyers
> know how to defend the CNRI disclaimers given choice-of-law; they don't know
> how to defend the GPL disclaimers without choice-of-law.

It protects CNRI just as the current licence does. It also
says that if the GPL becomes relevant then *that* doesn't
need to be interpreted under Virginian law. But the CNRI
licence itself would still be so interpreted, which surely
is what CNRI wants.

So it seems to my unlawyerly eyes, anyway.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
sig under construction