On 09/17/2013 05:37 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > 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
Since there are 3 versions of this table, it's unavoidable that one of them gets out of sync :) * LICENSE * Doc/license.rst * the versions for each release on the website So I wholeheartedly support truncating before 2.2 (which is the first release where all micro versions are PSF owned and GPL compatible) and just saying "2.2 onwards" (or whatever is the best way to say it). cheers, Georg _______________________________________________ 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
