Python License Issues

[Rocco Moretti]

christoforou at gaaros.com wrote in message news:<mailman.1013627905.10961.python-list at python.org>...

> Some clients demand a certain level of 'protection' from situations of gross 
> misconduct, say python has stolen major chunks of code from other apps and 
> thus exposing them to huge legal risks. We can consider accepting liability 
> on all third party code we use, for such gross misconduct situations but is 
> it technically possible to do so given the PSF license? Ideally we would 
> like to negotiate a single license agreement with these clients (our license 
> agreement) which provides additional liability over and above to that which 
> PSF provides. However given clause 4 it seems that the client *must* 
> directly be bound by the PSF license. 
> 
> Any comments? 

Yes: What are you trying to get out of asking
comp.lang.python/python-list? If you have legal questions, it is best
to refer them to a lawyer who is certified to practice law in your
jurisdiction. This is doubly important as you are in London, England,
UK, and the PSF is based out of (Delaware? Virginia?) USA. The
international implications of the licensing are not trivial and
require the expertise of a professional. (i.e. If you're really
concerned about this, don't hesitate on shelling out a retainer for a
good lawyer.)

Regarding Python stealing major chunks of code: Is this a hypothetical
argument, or has this charge been leveled at Python by your clients?

# Addressing everyone now

On a somewhat tangential note, I realize that most of the PythonLabs
team at this point says "Done is good!" with the Python license and
wish to wash their hands of it, but the ~70 line contract with the
four different copyright owners and different licensing clauses for
each makes me a little queasy, even with assurances that it is "GPL
compatible."  (Legalese makes me nervous.)

>From what I understand, the copyright owners can change the licensing
terms at will, so if the PSF has the copyright to *all* of the code in
Python, they could replace the four section license with a single
section license like a BSD style license or even with (just) the
current PSF section and a listing of the Copyright: Year-Year Holder
list at the top. (Aside: Why *does* the PSF use an 8 subpoint license
instead of a BSD style? Is it strictly to maintain compatibility with
the BeOpen and CNRI sections?)

So who actually holds the copyright for all the bits of Python?

>From what I understand, BeOpen is no longer in business. Has the PSF
considered obtaining the copyright for the portions of code written at
BeOpen from whoever got it from the fire sale?
Although Stichting Mathematisch Centrum still exists, would the PSF
consider approaching them about a transfer of the Python copyrights?
CNRI probably is the toughest sell, as they still exist and have
concerns about liability. Would it be possible to negotiate some sort
of contract with them where the PSF assumes all liability for Python
versions other than 1.6.z, and CRNI keeps perpetual rights to the
1.6.z codebase?

I'm not really asking about if it is legally possible, but more so to
see if the PSF would be willing to take on such a task.

"Simple is better than complex"-applies-to-licenses-too-ly'rs 

-Rocco