license

[Tim Peters]

[Arthur]
> But understand, if he was redistributing Python with some notification
> that what one is receiving is modified from Python2.3, there is not an
> issue.

As I said, the PSF license requires that derived works include a brief
summary of changes made from the base distribution.  That, along with
preserving the PSF licence and copyright notice, is roughly all it requires.
There are no restrictions on the nature of changes derived works can make.

> The facts here -
>
> One has a standard Python installation. That is assumed by the third
> party distribution. And with no warning that it intends to do so, that
> the 3rd party package you download modifies the standard installation,
> and gives no notification that it did so.
>
> And the modification does not even reverse itself if you uninstall that
> package.
>
> I think that's quite ugly.
>
> And thought someone might agree.

You asked whether it violated the license, not whether it was ugly.

> its refreshing to know I'm *never* right.

It sounded ugly to me too, but the license doesn't forbid ugliness.