Commit Graph

16 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Guido van Rossum
648b4de3d3 Make the license GPL-compatible. 2001-05-04 18:49:06 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
859d9b5097 Tim convinced me to augment the PSF license with a final clause just
like the one in the BeOpen license (and similar to the one in the CNRI
license, but with the "click-to-accept" part elided).
2001-04-13 19:41:28 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
575d7f3f3f Oops. Need an extra blank line after the PSF license. 2001-04-13 15:04:31 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
9ea60c51bb - Inserted the (tentative) PSF license.
- Removed the subsection numbering in section B (each time a new
  license is inserted in the front, the others have to be renumbered).

- Changed the words in the intro to avoid implying that 1.6.1 is
  GPL-compatible.
2001-04-13 15:04:00 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
aa815df1e1 Correct the header over the string of licenses -- it's "PYTHON", not
"Python 1.6.1".
2001-04-10 03:37:31 +00:00
Thomas Wouters
f5db48e72e Fix typo in history. 2001-03-22 16:03:53 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
3225c1fa2a Updated history. Incorporated 1.6.1 license. 2001-03-22 15:41:06 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
71500c8293 Add note about copyright ownership and license situation. 2001-01-18 14:39:49 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
9d64479cb2 Typo detected by "the miraculous Debian package lint tool "lintian"
(http://package.debian.org/lintian), which includes a spellchecker for
common typos in control files of packages... You see, we're so
paranoid that we even have automatic tools that keep monitoring
license files ;-)"  (Gregor Hoffleit)
2000-12-12 15:24:57 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
ea761c0d9e Place the full text of the CNRI license verbatim in the LICENSE file.
Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?
2000-10-10 14:49:44 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
82271161cc Since it looks like the dual license clause may be neither necessary
nor sufficient to make Python 2.0 compatible with the GPL, we won't
bother with it now.

In other words, we're still where we were weeks ago -- CNRI believes
that its license is GPL-compatible, Stallman says it's not.  I'm
trying to arrange a meeting between their lawyers so they can work it
out.  Whether dual licensing is the solution is open at this point.
If it is the (only!) solution, we'll add that to the BeOpen license
for 2.0 final.
2000-09-05 03:05:07 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
2e0d3311f7 Changes in license names by BobW. 2000-09-04 00:58:48 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
ac1c818f13 Properly name and number the BEOPEN OPEN SOURCE PYTHON LICENSE
AGREEMENT VERSION 1.

trade name -> trade names.

Note: depending on community feedback, we may end up taking the dual
licensing clause out for 2.0b1, and put it back into 2.0final, if
there's no other solution for assuring GPL compatibility by then.

See my message to python-dev and license-py20.
2000-09-03 13:21:38 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
028d06938d Various edits. Most importantly, added dual licensing. Also some
changes suggested by BobW.
2000-09-03 03:13:44 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
ea70b49080 Tentative license. Could still change for the 2.0b1 release and will
definitely change for the 2.0 final release.
2000-09-01 19:51:14 +00:00
Guido van Rossum
a6a0ab4bab Adding a LICENSE file so we can have it in the 1.6 release. 2000-08-02 02:35:08 +00:00