On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >> I'm tempted to use the FSF lawyers instead of seeing if we can go >> through PSF, since the FSF lawyers have recently had some fairly >> public successes, and they might be more inclined to help try to >> find all the ways in which we can go after them. > > AFAIK much of Mailman is owned by the FSF, and maybe none by the PSF. > So only the FSF would have standing anyway.
It's currently licensed under the GPL, but as a project written in Python, I wonder if we might also be able to make the case that the PSF lawyers could be brought in. Even if we could, I would be inclined to go with the FSF lawyers first. > Technically for GPLv2, a commercial distributor should be distributing > source on the same media that they distribute the installer, so this > might not be enough to be in compliance. But the code is publicly > available, and realistically, this is as much as we want to ask for. It's Python, so unless they're doing a pre-compiled bytecode distribution, they are distributing the source on the same media as the installer -- the source is all they've got. It's not executable code until Python gets its hands on it and turns it into bytecode, and then keeps a cached copy of that bytecode around so that it doesn't need to go through this process again, unless the source is changed. -- Brad Knowles <b...@shub-internet.org> LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
