> > > ... it seems 2.0 can reuse the CWI license after all ;-) > > > > I'm not sure why you think that: 2.0 is a derivative version and is > > thus bound by the CNRI license as well as by the license that BeOpen > > adds. > > If you interpret the above wording in the sense of "preparing > a derivative version of the License Agreement", BeOpen (or > anyone else) could just remove the CNRI License text. I > understand that this is not intended (that's why I put the smiley > there ;-). Please forget this interpretation! :-) > I haven't found an English version of the German law text, > but this is the title of the law which handles German > business conditions: > > "Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen > AGBG) - Act Governing Standard Business Conditions" > > The relevant paragraph is no. 11 (10). > > I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know: > terms generally excluding liability are invalid; liability > may be limited during the first 6 months after license > agreement and excluded after this initial period. > > Anyway, you're right in that the notice about the paragraph > not necessarily applying to the licensee only has informational > character and that it doesn't do any harm otherwise. OK, we'll just let this go. > > It's better not to violate the license. But do you really think that > > they would go after you immediately if you show good intentions to > > rectify? > > I don't intend to violate the license, but customers of > an application embedding Python will have to agree to the > Python license to be able to legally use the Python engine > embedded in the application -- that is: if the application > unintensionally fails to meet the CNRI license terms > then the application as a whole would immediately become > unusable by the customer. > > Now just think of an eCommerce application which produces > some $100k USD revenue each day... such a customer wouldn't > like these license terms at all :-( That depends. Unintentional failure to meet the license terms seems unlikely to me considering that the license doesn't impose a lot of requirments. It's vague in its definitions, but I think that works in your advantage. > BTW, I think that section 6. can be removed altogether, if > it doesn't include any reference to such a 30-60 day period: > the permissions set forth in a license are only valid in case > the license terms are adhered to whether it includes such > a section or not. Try to explain that to a lawyer. :) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4