Mailing List Archive

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I believe the text of the license and forms we use is quite
> uncontroversial; these very same words have been used for JPython for
> quite a while. The words are all on the web:

Actually, I don't like them all that much :-(
[.I don't recall any specific discussion about it, but I may have missed it
and/or simply because I've never used JPython.]

The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I
dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to
prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause. I might
find other items, but that is from a quick read using Lynx on a tiny
monitor...

Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that
license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their
marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never
do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license.

[.there is a separate issue of whether "Python" can be trademarked, but the
license does use the term "trade name" which could easily be argued to
include the term "Python" and thus subject the name to the license.]

> If you *did* contribute code to Python, however, I'd love it if you
> saved me some work and filled out the wet signature form and mailed it
> to me at the given address.

No problem.

Future contributions and agreemend to abide by that license are a
different issue. It doesn't have the "feels good" feeling that the old
license does. I'm not sure that bodes well, and it doesn't sit well with
me at the moment.

Regards,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

> The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I
> dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to
> prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause. I might
> find other items, but that is from a quick read using Lynx on a tiny
> monitor...

Hm... We may have to review the regulation of the Python name. This
made sense in the context of the previous uses of this license
(JPython and Grail) but Python is a different thing -- the name Python
stands for more than just the implementation. I'll discuss this with
CNRI's legal team.

I don't see how the other things you mention can be much of a problem
(most Open Source licenses have a revocation clause these days, I
think, and I don't see how discussing the modifications made can be a
problem with open source users).

> Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that
> license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their
> marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never
> do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license.

How can you say that without consulting with the board? And I am *on*
that board! I despise your attitude.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

>>>>> "GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:

GS> Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely
GS> like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python"
GS> significantly in their marketing and their business.

Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have
embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero
complaints from them on the JPython license.

-Barry

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm... We may have to review the regulation of the Python name. This
> made sense in the context of the previous uses of this license
> (JPython and Grail) but Python is a different thing -- the name Python
> stands for more than just the implementation. I'll discuss this with
> CNRI's legal team.

Cool.

> I don't see how the other things you mention can be much of a problem
> (most Open Source licenses have a revocation clause these days, I
> think, and I don't see how discussing the modifications made can be a
> problem with open source users).

I'll do some more reading. As I said: that was my first cut. The
revocation clause doesn't sit well with me. Maybe other OSS packages have
it, but I believe that is usually because the license was developed by a
company and its legal team. I don't think the GPL, BSD, MPL, and Apache
licenses have revocation clauses, and I consider those to be the "most
open" types of licenses (MPL less so). The Python 1.5 license is just as
open, more so than most.

> > Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely like that
> > license? Each of those companies uses "Python" significantly in their
> > marketing and their business. I can certainly state that PPSI will never
> > do anything in an official capacity to recognize that license.
>
> How can you say that without consulting with the board? And I am *on*
> that board! I despise your attitude.

Because the President (me) runs the day-to-day operation and direction of
the company. The Board advises. The Board typically has other duties such
as replacing me :-), handling stock issues, etc, but the Board is
typically not involved with most issues. This is standard practice for
corporate organization.

Therefore, I *can* make that choice, and even do it unilaterally if I
wanted to be an ass about it. Will I refuse to listen to the board or the
shareholders or the employees? Of course I'll listen.
[further PPSI issues should be taken offline]

Regardless: it boils down to the "Python" requirement in that license.
PPSI simply cannot operate under that license. If it gets dropped, then
cool.

-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> GS> Heck, how could people like PPSI, PythonWare, or D.C. truely
> GS> like that license? Each of those companies uses "Python"
> GS> significantly in their marketing and their business.
>
> Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have
> embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero
> complaints from them on the JPython license.

Are they using it in their marketing, or simply as an underlying driving
force for their products?

If they *are* using it in their marketing, then they have exposed
themselves to a liability. According to the license that they are using,
they are not allowed to use JPython in their marketing. If they do, then
they are in breach of the license and it could be terminated on them.
Their products could no longer include JPython and they'd be SOL.

I would be interested to hear from somebody using JPython and marketing it
and how they interpreted that license. Possibly I'm missing something, but
that language seems pretty darn clear to me.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

> I believe the text of the license and forms we use is quite
> uncontroversial; these very same words have been used for JPython
for
> quite a while. The words are all on the web:

Obviously IANAL. However, this language does make me feel less
comfortable than the existing one. The ability to terminate would
appear an issue - it would seem to take a braver CEO to base their
technology on Python with this hanging over them. Sure, it may rarely
be invoked, but I certainly wouldnt want to fight it in court if it
was. If I was writing in C, I could worst-case grudgingly accept
needing to change compilers - but I dont have that luxury for Python.
If my license was terminated, I have nowhere else to turn.

It is a real shame when lawyers get so involved. Obviously Guido has
no say in this, but IMO the ideal scenario would be to use the exsting
language, but simply change the names and dates. Im guessing this
would be unacceptable to CNRI.

Being NAL, I suppose I have no choice other than to trust this
licence. However, Im not looking forward to showing this licence to
people as they are deciding if Python is the appropriate technology
choice - to date, there has never been an issue - all they need to is
not remove any copyright notice from the code (which is not actually
seen in most apps) and add the copyright notice to the documentation.
This new one seems much scarier to me..

Just my $200.00 worth (remember, we are talking lawyers fees here :-)
I dont have a real concern as I dont understand the legal
implications; just a slight uneasiness about it all...Not being
controversial for the sake of it, just airing my possibly il-informed
opinion - no opinions were solicitied, but that has never stopped me
before :-)

Of course, I will be sending my "wet" signature on the form. Im not
sure what to put in the "contribution description" - maybe just
"various small changes to the Windows port"?? I can't say Ive added
entire modules, but my name appears against a number of small patches
to a fairly large set of files...

Mark.

I dislike the new license. Selling Python at work wasn't easy, but the
short & straightforward CWI license went a *long* way toward convincing the
suits there was little to worry about. The new license has several blobs of
lawyer-speak that ensure the next battle will be much harder -- the prospect
of license revocation, some fuzzy concept of derivative works, and vague
"prominent display" requirements? Boston lawyers charge Really Big Bux to
guess what that gibberish might mean in Virginia. The only bright side is
that we now get explicit rights to "perform" and "display" Python
<wink/sigh>.

> If you believe that special circumstances exist that make it
> impossible or difficult for you to sign the form, please send me
> email, and we'll discuss the matter.

It would less hassle for me if you took all my contributions out <0.9 wink>.

i'll-sign-but-it's-really-really-really-depressing-ly y'rs - tim

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I believe the text of the license and forms we use is quite
> uncontroversial; these very same words have been used for JPython for
> quite a while. The words are all on the web:
>
> http://www.python.org/1.5/pylicense.html [proposed license]
> http://www.python.org/1.5/bugrelease.html [email release]
> http://www.python.org/1.5/wetsign.html [wet signature release]

Hi all. I'm sorry i haven't contributed anything to the
relative-import and python-path discussions of late, but
that's because so far i haven't had any ideas that have
crossed my threshold of being sufficiently insightful to
propose. I will follow the discussion with much interest.

I'm afraid i have to say that the revocation clause makes
me pretty uncomfortable. I know that it says CNRI will
revoke only on a "material breach", but i still have a
nasty suspicion that it sounds frightening enough to scare
many people away. I don't think we want that.

I suppose Greg's other points of contention are valid too
but it's really the revocation that bugs me the most.



-- ?!ng

> The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I
> dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to
> prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause.

same here. reading the new one made me feel very
uneasy, but I cannot really say much about it before
I've discussed it with people who know more about
this...

just a few small notes:

the BSD-ish license used up to now has been a major
selling argument for Python, while this one seems to
really push the bounds of what qualifies as an open
source license...

(it also seems to imply that Python is a trademark,
which is, as far as I can tell, is not true at this time.
and archive corporation/seagate already owns the
trademark wrt. software).

the worst thing is that we will have to run this
by our lawyers before we can decide whether to
continue contributing to 1.6 development :-(

</F>

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> > The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I
> > dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to
> > prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause.
>
> same here. reading the new one made me feel very
> uneasy, but I cannot really say much about it before
> I've discussed it with people who know more about
> this...

Dito.

Some comments:
"""
4.Licensee may not use CNRI trademarks or trade name, including Python or
CNRI, in a trademark sense to endorse or promote products or services of
Licensee, or any third party. Licensee may use the mark Python in
connection with Licensee's derivative versions that are based on or
incorporate the Software, but only in the form "Python-based
___________________," or equivalent.
"""

Say I want to sell Python 1.6 training, how would I promote this ?
Since I'm not producing a derivative work, I guess I couldn't
use the name 'Python' at all... hmm, I could probably try Pyth*n ;-)

"""
3.In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or
incorporates the Software or any part thereof, and wants to make the
derivative work available to the public as provided herein, then Licensee
hereby agrees to indicate in any such work, in a prominently visible way,
the nature of the modifications made to CNRI's Software.
"""

How explicit would that indication have to be ? E.g. do I have
to provide a patch or would a simple run-down of new features
suffice ?

Needless to say, I would not be able to sell products based
on Python 1.6 with the revocation clause in the license. In the
end, I'd probably have to negotiate a separate license with
CNRI not having this clause. Anything else would be unacceptable
in a commercial setting. Is this intended ?

And finally in the "Python Contribution Agreement":
"""
Licensee confirms to CNRI that, to the best of Licensee's
knowledge and belief, the Contribution is free of any claims of
parties other than Licensee under copyright, patent or other
rights or interests ("claims").
"""

Best knowledge and belief do not guard against law suit. Why
doesn't this text protect the contributor in some way against
charges forwarded by CNRI to the contributor ? (Note that the
disclaimer in the Python License is not valid everywhere.)

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Y2000: 107 days left
Business: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

>>>>> "GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:

GS> Are they using it in their marketing, or simply as an
GS> underlying driving force for their products?

I'm not sure that JPython is much of a marketing advantage right now,
so AFAIK none of them are actively promoting their use of JPython in
their product. However, my reading of the second half of item 4 would
allow them to say something like "You can even extend your flapjabs
using our keen JPython-based scripting capabilities".

GS> If they *are* using it in their marketing, then they have
GS> exposed themselves to a liability. According to the license
GS> that they are using, they are not allowed to use JPython in
GS> their marketing. If they do, then they are in breach of the
GS> license and it could be terminated on them. Their products
GS> could no longer include JPython and they'd be SOL.

I hope that wouldn't really be the case, but it's an interesting
point, so I'm sure we'll bring it up.

-Barry

Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I believe the text of the license and forms we use is quite
> > uncontroversial; these very same words have been used for JPython for
> > quite a while. The words are all on the web:

Oh boy, this is really going to cause trouble. Where's my flame suit...

> The BSD-ish license that Python has always used is much more preferable. I
> dislike the regulation of the "Python" name, the requirement to
> prominently discuss modifications made, and the revocation clause. I might
> find other items, but that is from a quick read using Lynx on a tiny
> monitor...

I guess I am used to reading license agreements, and I am not very
worried about the new one. Before we all get upset, lets remember
that Guido works in a large company with lots of lawyers, and he
trapped between a group of Internet geeks (hey, I like Internet
geeks) and his buracracy.

And remember that lawyers respond better to specific proposals
for language changes than philosophical discussion.

First off, the license is not revokable. It is only revokable
on breach. If a license can not be revoked on breach it doesn't
really mean anything. This is totally standard. Suppose someone
else claims to own Python and starts selling "The True Standard
Python" for $100. Suppose they change the standard library names
so software only runs on their version. CNRI should be able to
revoke their license to use Python. This is something we would
all want CNRI to do.

The protection of the Python name is a necessity. That is really
all CNRI has, since the license gives away use of the software itself.
If CNRI doesn't own "Python" then it can't object when someone else
claims they own it. Don't we want them to object?
The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you
can't use it in a trademark sense. I think that means you can say
"I am teaching a course on Python, which is CNRI's software" but not
"I am teaching a course on my Python, all rights reserved". Actually
this is a little unclear, perhaps (4) could be made a little clearer.

Paragraph (3) is a little troublesome. I seems to mean that if
you ship a modified Python, you must say it is modified. I
presume it doesn't mean that you must describe your own code
in the event it incorporates Python. Really, we need to know what
CNRI wants us to do here.

On the contributions side (wetsign.html) it says you are contributing
software free of third party claims "to the best of your knowledge
and belief" not "represents and warrants" which is different. CNRI
really has to be told that as far as you know, you didn't steal the
software you are contributing. This is reasonable. Actually I
might like to see a warranty disclaimer "NO WARRANTIES etc." like
the license paragraph (5) and (6). I am not sure I need it since
the contribution is free, but I usually ship free software with
a disclaimer for "fitness for any particular purpose etc.".

This is a pretty weak license agreement. Remember that if it is
too weak, it prevents CNRI from defending Python against others
who would claim they own it or who claim they are the true source
of the language design (paranoia department: Microsoft's Python++).
We want CNRI to defend Python, right?

Jim Ahlstrom

On 14 September 1999, Barry A. Warsaw said:
> Data point: I know that there are a number of companies that have
> embedded JPython in their commercial products. So far I've had zero
> complaints from them on the JPython license.

Just thought I should join the tide of opposition: heck, I *work* for
CNRI and I still don't like the license. I didn't say much about the
new JPython license because a) I trust Barry's judgement, b) it was
certainly an improvement over the old JPython license, and c) I wasn't
especially worried about one part of CNRI (Guido's group) taking JPython
away from another part (the group that Andrew and I are on).

However, that doesn't change the fact that the "new" license is a nasty
piece of legalistic gibberish. Making it the license for Python 1.6
would be a major setback -- while it was better than the old JPython
license, it's a damn sight worse than the old Python license. I have
zero sympathy for the legal beagles here with their narrow corporatist
viewpoint; trying to treat Python as just another potential piece of
intellectual property is wrong-headed in the extreme. The free software
world simply does not work that way.

BTW, I suspect that the companies embedding JPython haven't minded the
license because they come from the Java world, a world that seems to me
to be dominated by corporate pin-headed thinking. The idea of
community, openness, and sharing is utterly alien to these suit-wearing,
smarmy Java frat-boy types, so JPython's licensing terms were probably a
breath of fresh air to them. ("What? No $100,000 source license fee?
Wow!") ("But wait Chip -- it's not BUZZWORD COMPLIANT! I can't find
enough TLAs!!!")

Hmmm, enough flaming Java weenies. Please, don't anybody take the last
paragraphy too seriously or personally...

Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward@cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913

> The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you
> can't use it in a trademark sense.

quick check: which of these uses "Python" in a trademark
sense, and thus violates the license:

pythonware? professional python services? pythonworks?
programming python? python training? python powered?
the viper python implementation? python imaging library?
wxpython? pythonwin? etc.

all of them? none of them?

</F>

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> > The license doesn't say you can't use "Python", it sayes you
> > can't use it in a trademark sense.
>
> quick check: which of these uses "Python" in a trademark
> sense, and thus violates the license:
>
> pythonware? professional python services? pythonworks?
> programming python? python training? python powered?
> the viper python implementation? python imaging library?
> wxpython? pythonwin? etc.
>
> all of them? none of them?

Using a word in a trademark sense usually simply means using it
in corporate relationships (at least that's how it works in Germany).
If you are a company and talk about, write about or otherwise use
the word in a commercial context then you are using the word in
a trademark sense.

There are several ways to declare a trademark, e.g. there are
word marks, logo marks, sound marks, color marks etc. (don't know if
these
are the right translations). A word mark, for example, refers
to a specific spelling of the word regardeless of the font, style
or color. Logo marks refer to a specific design including font,
style and color.

Note that a trademark owner can still give you permission to use
the mark in any decent way without paying fees or royalties. So
even if CNRI does own the mark, they could still make it usable
by others. In fact, if done right, this is a Good Thing.

The answer to your question depends on what kind mark CNRI
owns.

[.There currently is a very strong movement in Germany against
people who are applying what they learned from domain grabbing to
trademarks. Prominent examples include "WWW" and "Webspace". Even
the color violet is trademarked (by a company producing chocolate)]

--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Y2000: 107 days left
Business: http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/

Guido, maybe it would make sense to explain the need for a license change.
Is my understanding correct that the occasion for the license change is
that the copyright is now clearly shifting to CNRI, and as a result CNRI
has to forge a license? (BTW, I thought *you* had the copyright transfer
from CWI, not CNRI).

--david

[David Ascher]
> Guido, maybe it would make sense to explain the need for a license change.
> Is my understanding correct that the occasion for the license change is
> that the copyright is now clearly shifting to CNRI, and as a result CNRI
> has to forge a license? (BTW, I thought *you* had the copyright transfer
> from CWI, not CNRI).

Correct on both counts.

CWI owns the copyright on old Python versions through Python 1.2. I
have personally obtained non-exclusive rights to these from CWI.

CNRI, by nature of my employment contract, has the copyright on newer
versions.

CNRI feels the need to protect its intellectual property rights. It
feels that the old Python license, even with CNRI added, does not
adequately protect CNRI against certain (unlikely) events -- hence the
desire to draft a new license.

CNRI understands that open source (and now Open Source -- the OSI
board has approved the old Python license!) like Python requires
different licensing terms than a typical product developed solely by
CNRI.

I think that the main problem is that CNRI's understanding of what
truly constritutes open source is limited, and that my own
understanding of legal issues is limited, so that the negotiations
with CNRI's legal department (which is headed by CNRI's director)
often turn in their favor.

I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a
new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it. The
CWI ownership of much of the code probably means that the license as
it stands doesn't hold anyway.

I also think that the Python consortium has a say in the license
discussion -- the consortium agreement actually discusses the
ownership of intellectual property produced by/for the consortium at
some length.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

> CNRI understands that open source (and now Open Source -- the OSI
> board has approved the old Python license!) like Python requires
> different licensing terms than a typical product developed solely by
> CNRI.

Actually, this is a good point. I know the issue of payment may get
in the way, but it would make sense to have any future proposed
licenses reviewed by a lawyer "on our side" - eg, someone whose
mandate is to give a legal opinion on the risks and liabilities of the
_user_ of the license. Obviously the CNRI lawers are protecting their
(ie, CNRI's) interests, and everyone on this group is concerned about
their own (ie, personally, their company, or companies they wish to
introduct Python into) interests.

If the legal jibberish can't be removed (which is likely with lawyers
involved) I know I would personally feel much more comfortable with a
legal opinion covering my interests..

But as I said, who will pay? If nothing else, we should ensure the
OSI approves of the new license... Or maybe we can convince CNRI
there is real and serious concern, and they could pay for an external
IP lawyer?

Mark.

Mark Hammond wrote:
>...
> Actually, this is a good point. I know the issue of payment may get
> in the way, but it would make sense to have any future proposed
> licenses reviewed by a lawyer "on our side" - eg, someone whose
> mandate is to give a legal opinion on the risks and liabilities of the
> _user_ of the license.

Interesting thought!

> Obviously the CNRI lawers are protecting their
> (ie, CNRI's) interests, and everyone on this group is concerned about
> their own (ie, personally, their company, or companies they wish to
> introduct Python into) interests.

Because of these varied interests, I don't think a review by a
particular lawyer will be greatly helpful. The question will still
remain: "did the lawyer review it from [my/our/company] perspective?"
This will lead people back into the same review cycle.

>...
> But as I said, who will pay? If nothing else, we should ensure the
> OSI approves of the new license... Or maybe we can convince CNRI
> there is real and serious concern, and they could pay for an external
> IP lawyer?

Definitely having an OSI certification will be great (cool stuff on the
cert for the existing license!). Having Bruce Perens review the license
would also be a great boon (see www.perens.com for some of his writings;
also see http://perens.com/Termination.html specifically).

Licenses are a tough issue. I had to go through this entire morass when
deciding what to do with mod_dav. There are a lot of varieties and
issues and stuff to cover. I've read a bunch of license (not to mention
a bazillion legal documents during the eShop/acquisition days). Not
always exciting reading :-), but usually quite interesting.

At this point, I think it is a great thing that CNRI is reviewing the
license. Unfortunately, the license wasn't as non-controversial as it
was thought to be :-(. I'm more than happy to wait and see where they go
with the license.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Mark Hammond wrote:

> But as I said, who will pay? If nothing else, we should ensure the
> OSI approves of the new license... Or maybe we can convince CNRI
> there is real and serious concern, and they could pay for an external
> IP lawyer?

Eric Raymond's wife is a lawyer, I believe =).

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a
> new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it.

One more consideration: some people may compare the "scariness" of the
Python license against, say, the Tcl license - and choose accordingly.
It's not even about content: seeing that new license, or the Perl
licenses for that matter, it sends out a strong message IMO: you are
entering the world of lawyers. Proceed with caution. Guard dogs.

-- Jean-Claude

>>>>> "GS" == Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:

GS> Definitely having an OSI certification will be great (cool
GS> stuff on the cert for the existing license!). Having Bruce
GS> Perens review the license would also be a great boon (see
GS> www.perens.com for some of his writings; also see
GS> http://perens.com/Termination.html specifically).

Interesting article, but IBM's termination clause was different than
the JPython one. I fought hard on para7 because IIRC, RMS complained
that an earlier version /could/ have been used to arbitrarily
terminate. I think the current JPython para7 is better because /you/
have to materially breach, which seems like a much higher threshold.
But it still may not be perfect.

Aside: don't necessarily think I'm a grinning fan and defender of the
JPython license. It's a huge win over what we had before, and I think
it's good enough that nearly anybody who wants to do Real Things with
JPython, now can. I've had only one question about the license since
it was published and that was about the "displayed prominently" clause
(i.e. was it okay to include the alternative handle text in an "about"
menu pulldown? That seemed prominent enough to my nonlawyerly brain.)

I'm glad to see the Python community push hard for the "other side's
viewpoint" with reasoned and rational arguments. I think that such
responses from Influential Python Users will provide us with useful
ammunition when we re-evaluate the licenses. It means that ultimately
we'll have the right license for Python (and JPython).

Thanks,
-Barry

Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>...
> Interesting article, but IBM's termination clause was different than
> the JPython one. I fought hard on para7 because IIRC, RMS complained
> that an earlier version /could/ have been used to arbitrarily
> terminate. I think the current JPython para7 is better because /you/
> have to materially breach, which seems like a much higher threshold.
> But it still may not be perfect.

Yes, I was aware that it was a reactive termination, rather than
arbitrary. That makes it quite acceptable, but it still isn't a
desirable thing. Especially given some of the grey area in the license
("are we sure we aren't in breach of the license?").

Personally, I'd rather see a license without a termination clause. If it
must be there, then I'd like to see it as tight as possible (see the IBM
and Apple licenses: IIRC, they only kick in when the user initiates
patent litigation against IBM/Apple; the termination cuts them off as an
initial response to the suit).

The other elements I raised actually caused me more anxiety than the
termination.

If CNRI finds it acceptable, I'd recommend they use an existing OSD
license. They get immediate certfication and, more importantly, a
builtin awareness in the open source community of what the license
really means. Each time a new license arrives in the community, bunches
of people have to go an figure it out; if the new license is the IBM
Public License with a search/replace on the company and product name,
then people go "oh. all righty. no problem." and move on to doing real
stuff.

Dang. I keep replying to this stuff. :-) I'm hoping that we wrap this up
pending a new release.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

> So, in the end, am I still invited to sign & send the "wet" form or
> I'd better wait to let it dry?

Please send in the form -- the license was a totally separate issue
that I shouldn't have brought up in the same mail (or at all, in this
stage anyway -- we'll work this out with the Python consortium members
first).

> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
> to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed
> code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
> wouldn't have been what they are today.

Unfortunately, that's the price we have to pay. What we get is legal
protection from CNRI. In general CNRI has contributed a lot to
Python; probably more than you realize.

In any case, signing the form and including the email paragraphs is
completely voluntary -- if you don't want to do it, just let me know.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)