On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:44:47PM +1100, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> If you listen to CNRI or BeOpen's lawyers (but not Eben Moglen
> & the FSF), you're fine.
Guido has told me that something has been worked out with the FSF
now. Hopefully this stupid issue can be put to rest and we can
all get on
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am distributing Python programs under the GPL. So is this sentence
> above telling me that all users are not allowed to use my GPLed programs
> with Python 2.0?? What about previous versions?
IANAL, but:
This only causes a pro
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:56:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2001, at 11 h 45, the keyboard of Peter Eckersley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > clause requiring legal disputes to be settled under the jurisdiction of the
> > State of Virginia, USA,
>
> I mainta
On Tuesday 16 January 2001, at 11 h 45, the keyboard of Peter Eckersley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> clause requiring legal disputes to be settled under the jurisdiction of the
> State of Virginia, USA,
I maintain a Python program, which is GPL. I live in France and I'll never
accept such a cl
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> By this reasoning, for Python 2.0, you'd also have to add a BeOpen &
> California clause. And god knows what jurisdiction 2.1 will be under
> (I assume it will be owned by the PSF).
>
Argh, you're right. Hopefully any future licenses won't includ
On Jan 16, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> IANAL either,
>
> but I did do some research into the matter, and you could add a caluse to the
> GPL which says something like:
>
> "If this program is used with Python interpreter code whose license contains a
> clause requiring legal disputes to be settled u
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 07:53:15PM -0500, Ben Darnell wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Note that the license of Python 2 is not compatible with the GNU General
> > Public License (cf. clause 6 of the new Python license). Please don't
> > use GPL cod
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Note that the license of Python 2 is not compatible with the GNU General
> Public License (cf. clause 6 of the new Python license). Please don't
> use GPL code with Python2 without asking the authors of the GPL code for
> thei
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 10:17:42PM +0100, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I followed the discussion of the Python 2.0 packaging. In the python2-base
> > package I saw this text:
> >
> > Note that the license of Pyth
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 08:33:19PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I followed the discussion of the Python 2.0 packaging. In the python2-base
> package I saw this text:
>
> Note that the license of Python 2 is not compatible with the GNU General
> Public License (cf. clause 6 of th
Hello,
I followed the discussion of the Python 2.0 packaging. In the python2-base
package I saw this text:
Note that the license of Python 2 is not compatible with the GNU General
Public License (cf. clause 6 of the new Python license). Please don't
use GPL code with Python2 without asking the
11 matches
Mail list logo
