Re: Python 2.0
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> Can someone remind me what the problem was with the Python 2.0 license?
> I just took a quick look at http://www.pythonlabs.com/2.0/license.html,
> and I don't see anything questionable there. In fact, it's written
> under the State of California (not Virginia as in CNRI's Python 1.6).
> Can someone refresh my memory on this issue?
The license is fine and DFSG free (therefore there will a package in main
soon), the problem is clause 6, where they state "This License Agreement
shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects by the law of the State
of California, excluding conflict of law provisions." This is not compatible
with the GPL (at least according to RMS and his lawyer).
Since we have quite a few packages that mix Python licensed and GPLed code,
it would be a bad idea to replace Python 1.5.2 with Python 2.0. Therefore,
we will have two sets of Python packages that can exist side-by-side.
- Python 2.0
- From: Brent Fulgham <firstname.lastname@example.org>