RE: Python 2.0 in Debian (was: Re: [Python-Dev] PEPS, version control, release intervals)
[Gregor Hoffleit]
> ...
> I know that most of you guys are fed up with license discussions. Still,
> I dare to bring this back to your attentions:
Don't apologize -- the license remains an important issue to the Python
developers too. We rarely mention it in public anymore simply because
there's not yet anything new to say, while everything old has already been
repeated countless times.
> Most people seem to ignore the fact that the FSF considers the new Python
> license incompatible with the GPL--the FSF might be wrong in fact, but I
> think it's not a fair way of dealing with licenses to simply *ignore*
> their words.
Absolutely, and until this is resolved I urge that-- regardless of the
legalities, and unless you're looking to pick a legal fight --everyone
presume the copyright holder's position is correct. For me that's got
nothing to do with the law, it's simply respecting the wishes of the people
who own the code.
> If somebody could give me a legal advice that the Python license
> is in fact compatible with the GPL, and if this was accepted by the
> guys at debian-legal@lists.debian.org, I would happily adopt this
> opinion and that would make (b) go away as well.
Let's not even go there. Nothing legal is ever settled "for good" in the
US. This tack is hopeless.
The FSF and CNRI are still talking about this! There's still hope that it
will be resolved between them. If they can agree on a compromise, we'll
move as quickly as possible to implement it. Indeed, those who read the
Python checkin msgs have hints that we're very optimistic about a friendly
resolution. But we've got no control over when that may happen, and the
negotiations so far have proceeded at a pace that can only be described as
glacial.
> ...
> Until this happens, I think the best way for Debian to handle this
> situation (clearly not perfect!) is to use a per-case judgement--if
> there's GPL code in a package, ask the author if it's okay to use
> it with Python2 code. If he says alright, go on with packaging. If
> he says nogo (as the FSF did for readline), do away with the package
> (therefore python2-base doesn't include readline support).
I personally agree that's the best compromise we can get for now, and
greatly appreciate your willingness to endure this much special-case
fiddling on Python's behalf! We'll continue to do all that we can to ensure
that you won't have to endure this the next time around.
although-that's-rather-like-saying-we'll-do-all-we-can-to-ensure-
the-sun-doesn't-go-nova<wink>-ly y'rs - tim
Reply to: