[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 our counsel will figure out what a license > from a defunct BeOpen means and anything we do will be in compliance > with all of the license stack. I don't know BeOpen.com's legal status (for example, I don't know whether a bankruptcy judgement was issued). CWI is a Dutch national research institute, and CNRI and the PSF are both US 501(c)(3) public charities -- BeOpen.com was the only for-profit entity in Python's licensing history. It's quite intentional that the top three licenses on the stack "look pretty much alike" -- if I had my way, there would be only one license, but the parties involved couldn't agree to that at the time. While at least the PSF will pursue licence violations, the license is so permissive that there hasn't yet been any need for that. To the best of my knowledge, BeOpen.com, CNRI, and CWI have never had license complaints against anyone's use of Python either. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
