"Tim Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm not a lawyer, so can't give legal advice. I can explain intent,
> speaking as a Director of the Python Software Foundation.
This strikes me as an excellent reply, which would be worth adding to the
site as a FAQ (po
[Martitza]
> Mr. Peters:
Na, my father's dead -- you can call me Uncle Timmy ;-)
> Thank you for so kindly taking the time to resolve my misunderstandings
> and to elaborate on the intent of the PSF.
>
> In particular, thank you for explaining in plain language how the
> licenses stack. I'm sure
Mr. Peters:
Thank you for so kindly taking the time to resolve my misunderstandings
and to elaborate on the intent of the PSF.
In particular, thank you for explaining in plain language how the
licenses stack. I'm sure our counsel will figure out what a license
from a defunct BeOpen means and any
[Martitza]
|> Hi. I work for a small company (actually in process of forming)
> interested in embedding or extending python as part of our commercial
> non-open-source product. We have legal counsel, but are interested in
> the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Not much seems to have
> be
Hi. I work for a small company (actually in process of forming)
interested in embedding or extending python as part of our commercial
non-open-source product. We have legal counsel, but are interested in
the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Not much seems to have
been written about the p
