> I've just had a glance at the releas candidate 1. The file LICENSE > has grown somewhat, but not as much as I feared... Since when? It hasn't changed since it was first released, for 2.0b1. > looking > at the contents I find the following as only reference to the > CNRI license (which holds all the surprises we talked about in > the early beta stages): > > """ > CNRI OPEN SOURCE LICENSE AGREEMENT > ---------------------------------- > > Python 1.6 is made available subject to the terms and conditions in > CNRI's License Agreement. This Agreement together with Python 1.6 may > be located on the Internet using the following unique, persistent > identifier (known as a handle): 1895.22/1012. This Agreement may also > be obtained from a proxy server on the Internet using the following > URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1895.22/1012. > """ > > Such a note is nice and short, but not legally binding and > confusing since it is not clear whether the "handle" for the > document will always return the same license text or if it > will return a license text at all. Why do you say it's not legally binding? The CNRI license explicitly allows you to use this exact text instead of including the whole CNRI license. > It would be more appropriate to include the original CNRI license > text, IMHO. Or is there some hidden motivation behind using the > handle ? I was just trying to save space. ActivePython does the same thing as far as I remember. BTW, I haven't heard from CNRI in two weeks, but the last thing I heard from them was that their lawyers had talked to Stallman's lawyer and that they were optimistic about a successful resolution. --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