FOR APPROVAL - Python License Changes

[Bruce Perens]

Guido didn't have CNRI's formal permission to Open Source the Python 
language. I met with Dr. Kahn a long time ago and he agreed to allow 
Open Source licensing, which was a good thing since the program had 
already developed a wide following in the Open Source world at the time. 
But it's not really the case that CNRI the institution - rather than 
Guido the researcher - was a willing contributor.

     Thanks

     Bruce

On 05/26/2011 03:51 PM, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>
>    
>>  From what I understand, only the top-level license is operative.  Other
>> licenses are there because their own conditions say they must be carried
>> along with derivatives of the old code, but all old code has acquired
>> enough patches that it is no longer available solely on the terms of old
>> licenses.
>>      
> Pardon me if this is an obvious question, but couldn't CNRI address this
> by saying, as licensor, that all its pre-2.1 licensed code may now be distributed
> under 2.1? {The way Regents of UC Berkeley declared all of their 4-clause
> licensed code in the field could be distributed under 3-clause BSD.}
> Doesn't solve the problem of non-CNRI patches, but at least takes
> a stab at de-cluttering Python licensing.
>
> May I also suggest that Python 2.1 should carry a clause explicitly stating
> the license may be updated by the license steward (EPL as the
> model here).
>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel open source technology center
>
>    


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6097 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110526/a9295825/attachment.p7s>