On Sunday 18 November 2001 07:29 pm, Russell Nelson wrote: > Please look at the Python Software Foundation license: > > http://www.python.org/2.1.1/license.html
This license appears to conform to the OSD, and to be GPL compliant. I see no reason not to approve it. However a few comments are in order: "accessing and otherwise using Python 2.1.1 software in source or binary form" If this license could be templatized, so it is not specific to a particular program and version, it could then be used by many other projects, and wouldn't have to be re-approved for each Python release. "Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python 2.1.1." It would be nicer if this wasn't so vague. Just what is a 'brief summary'? Will standard code comments of the sort "the old way was stupid" count? "By copying, installing or otherwise using the software, Licensee agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this License Agreement." By merely following standard copyright law, the user will not violate any terms of the license. This clause is redundant, in my layman opinion, since the only way to violate it is to violate existing law. In addition, it specifies that one "agrees" simply by executing the software, a right that is granted to the user. How can I have the right to use the software if the exercise of that right automatically indicates my acceptance of unrelated terms? -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
