On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> Le Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:37:48 -0400, > Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> a écrit : > > > On 2.7, >>> license() return a text that includes a complete list of > > releases from 1.6 to 2.7 and stops there > > Release Derived Year Owner GPL- > > from compatible? > > (1) > > > > 0.9.0 thru 1.2 1991-1995 CWI yes > > 1.3 thru 1.5.2 1.2 1995-1999 CNRI yes > > 1.6 1.5.2 2000 CNRI no > > 2.0 1.6 2000 BeOpen.com no > > ... > > 2.6.5 2.6.4 2010 PSF yes > > 2.7 2.6 2010 PSF yes > > > > Was it intentional to stop with 2.7 and not continue with 2.7.1, etc? > > > > On 3.3.2, the 2.x list ends with 2.6.5 and never mentions 2.7. > > Intentional? It then jumps back to 3.0 and ends with the 'previous' > > release, 3.3.1. Should 3.3.2 be included in the 3.3.2 list? > > > > ... > > 2.6.4 2.6.3 2009 PSF yes > > 2.6.5 2.6.4 2010 PSF yes > > 3.0 2.6 2008 PSF yes > > 3.0.1 3.0 2009 PSF yes > > ... > > 3.2.4 3.2.3 2013 PSF yes > > 3.3.0 3.2 2012 PSF yes > > 3.3.1 3.3.0 2013 PSF yes > > I don't really understand why the releases should be manually listed. > Is it some kind of defensive coding? > Worse, it's superstition based on myth. IIRC this table was added when a few core Python developers including myself left CNRI in 2000. We had a bit of an argument about the license (not too much though -- in the end things came out alright). Some lawyer at CNRI thought it was a good idea to record a release history like this with the license, as a defense against whatever claims of ownership to the code someone else might suddenly come up with. Since all I wanted was to get out of there while causing them minimal upset, I told them I'd comply. But that's over 13 years ago now, and I'm not sure if it ever made sense (the internet is a different place than CNRI's lawyers envisioned). Only the top 10 of so lines of the table are in the least interesting (note that it describes a graph). I propose that we truncate the table and add a note saying that all following releases are owned by the PSF, GPL-compatible, and derived from previous PSF-owned and GPL-compatible releases. That should do until the PSF goes out of business (which I hope will never happen -- this is one reason why I wish the conferences were run by a separate entity, to avoid a conference bankruptcy from risking Python's continued open-source status). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
