On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote: > 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. Cool. > 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). I'll do some more reading. As I said: that was my first cut. The revocation clause doesn't sit well with me. Maybe other OSS packages have it, but I believe that is usually because the license was developed by a company and its legal team. I don't think the GPL, BSD, MPL, and Apache licenses have revocation clauses, and I consider those to be the "most open" types of licenses (MPL less so). The Python 1.5 license is just as open, more so than most. > > 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. Because the President (me) runs the day-to-day operation and direction of the company. The Board advises. The Board typically has other duties such as replacing me :-), handling stock issues, etc, but the Board is typically not involved with most issues. This is standard practice for corporate organization. Therefore, I *can* make that choice, and even do it unilaterally if I wanted to be an ass about it. Will I refuse to listen to the board or the shareholders or the employees? Of course I'll listen. [further PPSI issues should be taken offline] Regardless: it boils down to the "Python" requirement in that license. PPSI simply cannot operate under that license. If it gets dropped, then cool. -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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