[Greg Stein] > Why must we assert copyrights on these things? Come on, people. Aren't > we seeing Python 2.0 release problems because of copyrights? [Fred L. Drake, Jr.] > No. *Licensing* is distinct from copyright, and that's where we see > problems. The question of who is to be the next copyright holder will become a bone of contention too before this is over, don't you think? What to do with all the current copyright notices is already a point of negotiation (e.g., should CWI really have a notice in files that didn't even exist yet under their tenure? etc. Note that when I added pyport.h to the project, I put in only a BeOpen copyright: *someone* is bound to gripe about that too, provided I ever admit to it in public <wink>). I personally would like to get Python out of the copyright *and* license games forever, by releasing Python to the public domain (as, e.g., Ralph Griswold did with the Icon language from the start -- and enjoyed a hassle-free life ever after; yes, at least one closed-source copyrighted commercial version of Icon did appear, but that was no skin off Prof. Griswold's nose; he kept working on the PD one, and the commercial version eventually gave up -- heck, rather than see their work wasted, they contributed most of what they did back to the PD Icon Project!). I don't believe there's any real downside to PD in America so long as you're not afraid to compete on merit alone. Don't know about international law, though. > The copyrights are indisputable, but are not a problem. Pshaw -- everything's disputable <wink>. and-everything's-a-problem-ly y'rs - tim
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