The Python licensing situation.
kfogel at red-bean.com
Tue Jun 7 20:29:39 UTC 2011
"Lindberg, Van" <Van.Lindberg at haynesboone.com> writes:
>I believe it is the second case. I am almost certain the beta license
>was not submitted.
>Sorry for the top post; on a phone.
Thanks (no problem about the brevity).
Well, we could solve this easily by just approving the new version. Our
board meeting is tomorrow anyway, so let me raise this whole froofaraw
there and get back to you.
>On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:07 PM, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:
>> "Lindberg, Van" <Van.Lindberg at haynesboone.com> writes:
>>>> In  below, Van proposes a upgrade to the CNRI portion of the
>>>> Python-2.0 license (so this would be in Python-2.1). The changes are
>>>> mainly about making it GPL-compatible. They're actually a bit
>>>> interesting, but I don't want to go into them here, because there's a
>>>> larger question first:
>>>> In http://opensource.org/licenses/Python-2.0, OSI *already has* the
>>>> proposed CNRI 1.6.1 (GPL-compatible) text. So it appears OSI has
>>>> already approved this, or else there is a clerical error. Does anyone
>>>> know more about this?
>>> There *is* a clerical error - the version that was picked up and
>>> mirrored was the beta version of the license. This proposal is to 1)
>>> fix the clerical error, and 2) update the naming so that it is
>> So the version that was picked up and posted by OSI is one that PSF had
>> never officially released, and that now PSF is attempting to fix the
>> situation by just releasing it?
>> I'm still not clear on whether OSI actually approved the unreleased
>> beta, or whether we approved something else but then pasted the wrong
>> (unapproved) text into our own site's page. I realize that's a question
>> more for OSI people to answer, but if you happen to know the answer,
>> Van, please let me know.
>CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
>U.S. Treasury Regulations, Haynes and Boone, LLP informs you that any
>U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
>attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
>used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
>Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
>party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is confidential,
>may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended
>recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please
>immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.
More information about the License-discuss