Python license question

Tim Peters tim.peters at gmail.com
Mon Oct 9 04:46:09 CEST 2006


[Martitza]
> Mr. Peters:

Na, my father's dead -- you can call me Uncle Timmy ;-)

> Thank you for so kindly taking the time to resolve my misunderstandings
> and to elaborate on the intent of the PSF.
>
> In particular, thank you for explaining in plain language how the
> licenses stack.  I'm sure our counsel will figure out what a license
> from a defunct BeOpen means and anything we do will be in compliance
> with all of the license stack.

I don't know BeOpen.com's legal status (for example, I don't know
whether a bankruptcy judgement was issued).  CWI is a Dutch national
research institute, and CNRI and the PSF are both US 501(c)(3) public
charities -- BeOpen.com was the only for-profit entity in Python's
licensing history.  It's quite intentional that the top three licenses
on the stack "look pretty much alike" -- if I had my way, there would
be only one license, but the parties involved couldn't agree to that
at the time.

While at least the PSF will pursue licence violations, the license is
so permissive that there hasn't yet been any need for that.  To the
best of my knowledge, BeOpen.com, CNRI, and CWI have never had license
complaints against anyone's use of Python either.



More information about the Python-list mailing list