R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: Ah, I see.
No, the docs are correct, I'm the one who was mistaken. I thought the license page was on www.python.org, rather than docs.python.org. Developers *do* have full and easy access to docs.python.org, and we do track doc bugs here. As with the rest of our documentation, the license documentation page is "more complete" than the source version. (It's actually not in theory, it's just that it is collected all in one place...but the docs are shipped in the release tarballs, so the info is included in the distribution regardless). The license docs, unlike most of the rest of the docs, don't have 'version added' and 'deprecated' tags, so you have to refer to license page that relates to the specific version of python you are looking at. However, it is not clear to me (given your BSDDB example) that this is in fact the case. So I'm re-opening the issue hoping someone will be willing to do an audit. But as you say, for due diligence you do have to look at the source as well as the docs, even if we fix this. ---------- stage: committed/rejected -> needs patch status: closed -> open title: Is LICENSES.txt up to date? -> BSDDB license missing from liscense page in 2.7. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14759> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
