FOR APPROVAL - Python License Changes

[VanL]

On 8/31/2011 12:08 PM, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Joel Rees<joel_rees at sannet.ne.jp>  writes:
> > From my (out of context) pov, it would be worth asking the Python
>> community whether they might not want to make that clause more
>> readable in the new version, but to also ask what the practice is
>> relative to the clause, rather than try to determine the meaning
>> without their help.
> If the answer is "Diffs can be considered a summary", then there is no
> need for the clause, because it's trivial for anyone to generate a diff
> themselves given two source code releases anyway.  If the answer is
> "Diffs are not considered a summary", then the clause is problematic for
> the reasons I gave in my earlier mail.
>
> We're still waiting for a response from someone at PSF.  I may try to
> nudge some other people there -- if anyone here knows a PSF'er who can
> address the issues raised in this thread, please tap them.

Howdy. I am coming up for air and just tuned in again. I need to see 
what kind of legacy requirements we have (politically, socially, etc) 
from CNRI about these issues. The original text of the license was 
before my time, but I know that there were some messy issues surrounding it.

I will see what we want to do.

- Van