I argue that Debian needs to clarify immediately with copyright holder CNRI the licensing of Python 1.5.2--whether CNRI considers the 1.5.2 license to be valid and whether CNRI intends for 1.5.2 to be distributed with that license.
1) It's the safe and prudent thing to do. The copyright files in Python 1.5.2 list Guido van Rossum as the author, but he had signed over copyright to CNRI when he started working for them.(1) The copyright files only list the dates 1991-1995, a decision <URL: http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html> says was "deliberate", and do not list CNRI as the copyright holder. Guido's announcement of 1.6b1 includes the phrases "never placed a CNRI-specific license on the software" and "clarify the licensing".(2) Tim Peters has said "CNRI claims that the existing (CWI) Python license isn't a valid license, and while that claim makes little sense to me I'm not a lawyer"(3) and speculated "If CNRI claims they released software without a valid license, the legality of using 1.5.2 and 1.6a2 is muddy... Since it seems very unlikely they'll agree to say that the CWI license is valid, perhaps they could be persuaded to promise not to press any claims based on the presumed invalidity of the CWI license excepting claims against BeOpen PythonLabs."(4) Guido van Rossum's announcements and Tim Peters postings could hardly have been made in a more public manner, in Python's mailing lists and in Usenet's comp.lang.python. I posted pointers and quotes to debian-legal about a week ago. Debian has said in the past that releases are not made on a set schedule, they are made when the distribution is "ready". CNRI's opinion on these questions is simply unknown. Tim Peters has consistently been advising in public writings that the copyright holder CNRI needs to be asked. 2) It's the right thing to do. A policy of always asking the copyright holder when there is any doubt about the intent of licensing builds trust between Debian and software creators and trust between Debian and users. Debian's stance on including KDE was made despite the extreme unlikelihood of any copyright holder suing Debian and despite other distributions' judgment. Now we have a situation where the copyright holder CNRI has finished detailed negotiations "to clarify the licensing" with BeOpen over a new license for Python 1.6b1. The license included with Python 1.5.2 states that: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted" subject to certain easily met conditions such as retention of original copyright notices. Yet Tim Peters has written: "The gripe here was that, since they didn't believe the CWI license was valid, they-- as the copyright holder --didn't believe we had the right to release a derivative work without a license they *liked*. As things turned out, it appears the only license they like is the one they wrote."(5) Now the context of what Tim was talking about was that BeOpen, Guido van Rossum's new employer, wanted to cleanly get permission from CNRI, Guido van Rossum's former employer, to avoid any chance of a lawsuit. The copyright holder CNRI needs to be asked for the users' sake, so that users can know that the license of software distributed by Debian truthfully reflects the will of the copyright holder. (1) From: "Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Questions for Tim Peters Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:12:02 -0400 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: comp.lang.python (2) From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Python 1.6b1 is released! Date: 05 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: comp.lang.python (3) From: "Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: The State of Python Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:50:53 -0400 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (4) From: "Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>, "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Questions for Guido van Rossum (Was: ...Tim Peters) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:25:23 -0400 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (5) From: "Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Questions for Guido van Rossum Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 02:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sincerely yours, Henry Jones --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy.
