> guido wrote: > > > I want 2.0b1 to be released (don't you?) so I put an extra effort in > > to round up Stallman and make sure he and Kahn got on the phone to get > > a resolution, and for a blissful few hours I believed it was all done. > > well, after reading the rest of your mail, I'm not so > sure... Agreed. :-( > > After we thought we had reached agreement, Stallman realized that > > there are two interpretations of what will happen next: > > > > 1. BeOpen releases a version for which the license is, purely and > > simply, the GPL. > > > > 2. BeOpen releases a version which states the GPL as the license, > > and also states the CNRI license as applying with its text to part > > of the code. > > "to part of the code"? > > are you saying the 1.6 will be the last version that is > truly free for commercial use??? > > what parts would be GPL-only? Aaaaargh! Please don't misunderstand me! No part of Python will be GPL-only! At best we'll dual license. This was quoted directly from Stallman's mail about this issue. *He* doesn't care about the other half of the dual license, so he doens't mention it. Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~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