<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/20/2026 10:41 AM, Richard Fontana
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGT84B0WB9EjB5QMyreJUjrLGL5_dc8othPuSAdtmfJaKBW+Xw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 1:34\u202fPM Richard Fontana <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org"><fontana@sharpeleven.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
"
On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 12:39\u202fPM Josh Berkus <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:josh@berkus.org"><josh@berkus.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
On 3/20/26 9:13 AM, Max Mehl wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Following a discussion on license-discuss@ <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/022526.html"><https://
lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
discuss_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/022526.html></a> and a quick
coordination with Deb from the Python Software Foundation (in Cc), I
would like to propose that CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible be considered an
officially approved (legacy) Open Source license. In the same step, I
propose to mark CNRI-Python as either Superseded or Voluntarily Retired.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
The CNRI is written as a clickwrap agreement, rather than as a license.
Does this make it problematic to approve?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
The relevant phrasing is:
BY CLICKING ON "ACCEPT" WHERE INDICATED BELOW, OR BY COPYING,
INSTALLING OR OTHERWISE USING PYTHON 1.6.1 SOFTWARE, YOU ARE DEEMED TO
HAVE AGREED TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT.
Some other OSI-approved licenses have similar sorts of "usewrap"
language. This arguably includes the GPL, though the provision I'm
thinking of (GPLv2 section 5) is careful to refer only to "modifying
or distributing", and it seems to have gotten reinterpreted by people
in the GPL community.
A "clickwrap" requirement would violate the OSD, and this was the
point of the only amendment to the OSD ever made, OSD 10 ("No
provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
technology or style of interface").
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
To clarify since I realize I didn't really answer Josh's question, I
don't think a "clickwrap or usewrap" clause as we have here violates
OSD 10 but I suppose it's debatable. I assume there never was anything
to "click" in historical versions of Python and this is just ignorant
license lawyer drafting, and I hope that there are no present-day
official versions of Python for Windows or whatever where you have to
click accept in a GUI installer or something like that.
Richard</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I would say it doesn't because the clickwrap is in the
alternative, "or by copying ...." It doesn't even say that <i>if</i> there
is a clickwrap you must assent that way. So, since there is a way
to agree to the license, GUI or not, I would say it doesn't
violate OSD10. And I appreciate the historical context to OSD10.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<p>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a></p>
</body>
</html>