Python License Issues

[Tim Peters]

[Rocco Moretti]
> ...
> 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,

The current copyright is held by the PSF, not by PythonLabs.  Nevertheless,
there's scant visible interest among the PSF membership in doing more
license haggling.

> 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.)

In lieu of a court decision, most people (and reasonably so) accept what the
FSF says about which licences are and aren't GPL-compatible.  You should
read for yourself what they have to say about the various Python licenses:

    http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

> 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.

Yes, although the PSF only has power to change its own license; it cannot
change the licenses inherited from CWI, CNRI or BeOpen.

> (Aside: Why *does* the PSF use an 8 subpoint licenseinstead of a BSD
> style? Is it strictly to maintain compatibility with the BeOpen and CNRI
> sections?)

While I personally favor an MIT-style license (BSD is way too wordy for my
tastes <wink>), I did argue at the time for the current PSF license,
precisely for its extreme similarity to the other two most recent licenses.
If you take this stuff seriously, you have to understand all of them, so the
fewer variations the better.  Most people pay no attention at all, and
that's fine by me too.

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

The stack of licenses spell out the clearest answer to that you're going to
get, combined with digging through the CVS history (the CVS history is
intact from the very beginning, so every version ever released can be
reconstructed; and the licenses identify copyrights holder by release
numbers).  I expect the PSF will vote to require contribution forms in the
future, to make copyright issues slightly less muddy for new contributions
down the road.

> From what I understand, BeOpen is no longer in business.

If there was a formal bankruptcy judgment I never heard about it.  So,
AFAIK, BeOpen still exists in some limbo state.

> Has the PSF considered obtaining the copyright for the portions of code
> written at BeOpen from whoever got it from the fire sale?

As far as we know, BeOpen still has it, and of course they've been
approached about assigning copyright to the PSF.  You can guess the results
of that from observing the licenses we ship with <wink>.

> Although Stichting Mathematisch Centrum still exists, would the PSF
> consider approaching them about a transfer of the Python copyrights?

Of course.  You should realize that any legal transaction is expensive on
all sides, though, and since CWI has never hassled anyone over Python I
personally doubt they're keen to spend their own money quelling other
peoples' overblown fears.

> CNRI probably is the toughest sell, as they still exist and have
> concerns about liability.

It's worse than just that:  CNRI is a public charity (a technical term under
US tax laws), and it's said they *can't* transfer assets to an entity that
isn't also a public charity under US tax laws.  The PSF intends to qualify
as a public charity in the same sense, but so far does not enjoy that
status.

> 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?

You would have to ask CNRI about that.  You should also keep in mind that
the PSF has no assets other than the current Python copyright, so the idea
that the PSF could assume liability in any meaningful sense is fantastic:
one lawsuit and the PSF is bankrupt.

> 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.

The PSF is a legal conceit, like all corporations.  In the end, you have to
find *people* with the free time, expertise, and persistence to get things
done.  Everyone is eager to volunteer other peoples' lives <wink>.