[License-review] For Approval: libpng license, version 2.0

[VanL]

The Python license is as it is because 1) the work is accretive, and the
previously-released-and-licensed works are mostly still embedded in the
current version, and 2) so far, the work to remove and rewrite the bits
under the previous license is just not worth it from a ROI perspective.

Oh, and 3) previous license holders are not willing to assign (as of 2010
or so).

- Van

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:27 PM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 12:12 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> I found this submission very confusing, in part because it seems to be a
>> series of licenses and/or disclaimers sequentially superimposed on other
>> licenses or disclaimers, each of which appears to indicate that it applies
>> to different versions of a particular piece of software.
>>
>
> When I looked at the Python license tangle, which was many years ago, I
> concluded that only the most recent license was actually applicable, and
> that the other licenses were inert but could not be removed because they
> themselves said they could not be, like so many DNA viruses -- they get
> copied when Python is but have no function at all.
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> You let them out again, Old Man Willow!
> What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!
> Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!
> Bombadil is talking.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181105/1167de60/attachment-0001.html>