> The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I > dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to > prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause. I might > find other items, but that is from a quick read using Lynx on a tiny > monitor... Hm... We may have to review the regulation of the Python name. This made sense in the context of the previous uses of this license (JPython and Grail) but Python is a different thing -- the name Python stands for more than just the implementation. I'll discuss this with CNRI's legal team. I don't see how the other things you mention can be much of a problem (most Open Source licenses have a revocation clause these days, I think, and I don't see how discussing the modifications made can be a problem with open source users). > Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that > license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their > marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never > do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license. How can you say that without consulting with the board? And I am *on* that board! I despise your attitude. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~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