[Python-Dev] Still no new license -- but draft text available (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido@beopen.com
Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:50:26 -0500

> > ... it seems 2.0 can reuse the CWI license after all ;-) > > I'm not sure why you think that: 2.0 is a derivative version and is > thus bound by the CNRI license as well as by the license that BeOpen > adds.

If you interpret the above wording in the sense of "preparing a derivative version of the License Agreement", BeOpen (or anyone else) could just remove the CNRI License text. I understand that this is not intended (that's why I put the smiley there ;-).

Please forget this interpretation! :-)

I haven't found an English version of the German law text, but this is the title of the law which handles German business conditions:

"Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Gesch�ftsbedingungen AGBG) - Act Governing Standard Business Conditions" The relevant paragraph is no. 11 (10). I'm not a lawyer, but from what I know: terms generally excluding liability are invalid; liability may be limited during the first 6 months after license agreement and excluded after this initial period. Anyway, you're right in that the notice about the paragraph not necessarily applying to the licensee only has informational character and that it doesn't do any harm otherwise.

OK, we'll just let this go.

> It's better not to violate the license. But do you really think that > they would go after you immediately if you show good intentions to > rectify?

I don't intend to violate the license, but customers of an application embedding Python will have to agree to the Python license to be able to legally use the Python engine embedded in the application -- that is: if the application unintensionally fails to meet the CNRI license terms then the application as a whole would immediately become unusable by the customer. Now just think of an eCommerce application which produces some $100k USD revenue each day... such a customer wouldn't like these license terms at all :-(

That depends. Unintentional failure to meet the license terms seems unlikely to me considering that the license doesn't impose a lot of requirments. It's vague in its definitions, but I think that works in your advantage.

BTW, I think that section 6. can be removed altogether, if it doesn't include any reference to such a 30-60 day period: the permissions set forth in a license are only valid in case the license terms are adhered to whether it includes such a section or not.

Try to explain that to a lawyer. :)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)