Home Original page

Python 2.0b1 is released!

Paul Wright paul-wright at verence.demon.co.uk
Mon Sep 11 16:26:59 EDT 2000 
In article <slrn8rq2p9.12l.ssthapa at hepcat.uchicago.edu>,
Suchandra Thapa <s-thapa at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Steve Williams <sandj.williams at gte.net> wrote:
>>If the lawyer says we're going to interpret the license under the laws
>>of the Grand Duchy of Gerolstein, we need to pause for a moment and ask
>>ourselves "who's going to be running the ol' fiefdom in 10 years?"
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>Can you spell UCITA?  Sure, I knew you could.
>
>    From my understanding, CNRI is located in Virginia and so it makes sense
>for them to want the license to be interpeted under the laws of the state
>they're in.  I really don't think that this is a plot to use UCITA to carry
>out some underhanded scheme.  I would be more worried if CNRI wanted their
>license to be interpeted under some state that they have no connection with.

I believe the point here is that, according to what I've read, the UCITA
allows the licence to change retrospectively: that is, CNRI can apply
the current 1.6 licence now but in Virginia, they can legally substitute
another licence at a later date which is binding on people who *already*
have the software.

This from <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html>
"UCITA will allow the publishers to impose the most outrageous
restrictions on you. They could change the license retroactively at any
time, and force you to delete the material if you don't accept the
change. They could even prohibit you from describing what you see as
flaws in the material." 

So, you're not only trusting CNRI now, but in perpetuity (or at least
until UCITA is suceeded by something else). Certainly CNRI's intentions
seem good at the moment, but the powers UCITA gives make me a little
nervous of what they could do in the future if they decide not to play
nicely. Though making a closed version in the future, when other people
have already contributed changes, is not feasible unless perhaps they
can retrospectively change the licence such that changes are theirs too.
What a nasty thought. That sounds insane to me, but IANAL. I hope it
isn't possible. Anyone who is a lawyer care to comment?

-- 
----- Paul Wright ------| "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some
-paul.wright at pobox.com--| strangeness in the proportion." -- Francis Bacon
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
More information about the Python-list mailing list