Re: "re" module and old Python 1.6 (GPL incompatible) license?
* Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> [090712 20:43]:
> * Anderson Lizardo:
>
> > I noticed that some files of the "re" module still have the (GPL
> > incompatible) 1.6 license notice. Is that on purpose or
> > unintentionally forgotten?
>
> It is generally assumed that the PSF license grant in the LICENSE file
> overrides all the other licenses that apply to individual parts of the
> collection. That is, you can ignore all licenses in the license
> stack, except the PSF license. I think we have discussed this
> previously.
>
> I don't think this situation is particularly desirable, but it is
> unlikely to be solvable because one of the copyright holders
> (BeOpen.com) has apparently ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Sorry, I do not understand what you want to say with these two
paragraphs:
Either there are people having enough rights to relicense (thus make
a grant in a LICENSE file but sadly 'forgot' to update individual files,
which should be fixable easily)
or there is noone with this right, then any claim in the LICENSE file
to grant an additional license for this file would be known false thus
not useable.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth
Reply to: