Python 2.0b1 is released!

[Emile van Sebille]

Good point.  Who's likely to take issue?  CNRI claims
to believe the license is GPL compatible.  That leaves
the GPL licensed code author.  For what purpose would
it be pursued?  Could commercial python code presumably
be forced open sourced by such an action?  Is that what's
at stake?

Wishing-lawyers-had-to-write-laws-in-python-ly y'rs

--

Emile van Sebille
emile at fenx.com
-------------------


"Grant Griffin" <g2 at seebelow.org> wrote in message
news:39BA5B16.FD5CE447 at seebelow.org...
> Tim Peters wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
and-from-my-pov-getting-hassled-by-the-fsf's-lawyers-is-no-b
etter-
> >     than-getting-hassled-by-microsoft's-ly y'rs  - tim
>
> Yup.  It's fine for Stallman and his organization to
employ and consult
> lawyers.  <<tea leaves are cheaper>>  However, at whatever
moment the
> FSF takes legal action against *anyone* for *any* reason,
whatever
> little credibility they have as the software world's
one-and-only
> defenders of "freedom" will vanish for all time.
>
> go-ahead,-make-my-day-<wink>-ly y'rs,
>
> =g2
> --
>
____________________________________________________________
_________
>
> Grant R. Griffin
g2 at dspguru.com
> Publisher of dspGuru
http://www.dspguru.com
> Iowegian International Corporation
http://www.iowegian.com