Re: Bug#82116: README.why-python2 does not accurately describe licensing issues

[Gregor Hoffleit <gregor@hoffleit.de>]

Hi Chris,

thanks for the feedback!


On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:34:13PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I would add at least a pointer to the Python community's response to
> this issue, 

Which was like what ?

Can _you_ give _me_ a pointer to that response ? The only kind of response I
noticed was much /.-like noise a la 'RMS is a moron, let's ignore him.',
technical discussions on whether that clause would also apply in Germany, or
just silence.

I really don't know what the Python community thinks about this issue. I
think the community doesn't know either ;-/.

What I do know is that people at Digital Creations are aware of the fact
that there are mixed emotions about that license, and that Guido himself is
very much aware of that, too.


> as well as the statements by CNRI and BeOpen that the license is in fact
> GPL compatible.
> 
> CNRI's position: http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html

Ok, this will be added to the next revision.


> A complete treatment would also state that the "GPL incompatibility"
> is based on the jurisdictional interpretation requirement of the
> BeOpen and CNRI licenses (that is, that the language of the license is
> to be interpreted under the laws of California and Virginia,
> respectively).

That's mentioned in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html, which I
thought I had mentioned in README.why-python2... I have not included the
pointer. Very well, will be included in the next revision ;-)

  "The License of Python 1.6b1 and later versions.
   This is a free software license but is incompatible with the GNU GPL. The
   primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the
   laws of the "State" of Virginia in the USA, and the GPL does not permit
   this."


I was intentionally very terse in that file. I really tried to be unbiased,
but I guess I was not perfect.

It sounds like you think that that license is compatible with the GPL. Would
you agree with my conclusion that we should follow the wish of the FSF and
not mix their GPL code with Python 2 code ? I'm really open to other
opinions here, since I'm no lawyer.

    Gregor