Re: python-2.1 for unstable?
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 07:06:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <gregor@hoffleit.de> writes:
>
>>> This is probably correct, but it is completely irrelevant in our case.
>>> Some parts of Python 2.1 are still covered by the GPL-incompatible
>>> CNRI license, so Python 2.1 as a whole is not GPL compatible.
>>
>> I'm glad to correct you, but according to Guido and Eben, that's not the
>> case. The only remaining problem with the CNRI license was the
>> choice-of-law clause. Apparently Eben said to Guido that for GPL
>> compatibility only the choice-of-law in the topmost license on the stack
>> matters, and that's the PSF license. I'm no lawyer, so don't ask me why.
>
> This means that you can incorporate GPLed code whose copyright is
> owned by the FSF into Python, but other copyright owners might still
> ask you not to do this.
This reminds me of the ipfilter license blowup (cf.
http://lwn.net/2001/0524/#ipfilter), where the ipfilter author appearently
claimed that a standard BSD license doesn't permit modification of the code.
Certainly it's not unthinkable that people use the GPL for their own code,
but don't agree with the FSF that this new Python license is compatible with
the GPL. I would tend to think, though, that the vast majority of authors of
GPL code will agree with the interpretation of Moglen and RMS.
Therefore I can't see your point here.
Gregor
Reply to: