[Neil Hodgson] > I don't like this new license as it is much more complex than > the old license. Then I'd say you're normal! The principals on "our side" of the negotiation view this license as something of a triumph, simply because it's so much less obnoxious than the proposals that preceded it. Not speaking for my employer, I think we lost. OTOH, python.org will no longer be held hostage. > Its about 4 times longer and appears to me to attempt to claim a > licensing relationship with third parties who use software written in > Python. > > Is Python going to use this license forever, or is it just for 1.6? Who knows? It's all hifalutin legalese. Note that the text Guido sent out is not the same as the text it references at http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1011 either. I believe it's the latter that's out of date, and the text Guido sent is friendlier to users. Still, one way to read the Guido version is that 2.0 and everything after is a "derivative work", so must (paragraph 2) include the 1.6 CNRI license, and (paragraph 3) "indicate in any such work the nature of the modifications made to CNRIs Software". OTOH, I can see at least two other ways to read it! Perhaps a consortium member who already paid a lawyer would care to pass on their confusion <wink>. looks-infectious-to-me-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