| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
nor sufficient to make Python 2.0 compatible with the GPL, we won't
bother with it now.
In other words, we're still where we were weeks ago -- CNRI believes
that its license is GPL-compatible, Stallman says it's not. I'm
trying to arrange a meeting between their lawyers so they can work it
out. Whether dual licensing is the solution is open at this point.
If it is the (only!) solution, we'll add that to the BeOpen license
for 2.0 final.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
AGREEMENT VERSION 1.
trade name -> trade names.
Note: depending on community feedback, we may end up taking the dual
licensing clause out for 2.0b1, and put it back into 2.0final, if
there's no other solution for assuring GPL compatibility by then.
See my message to python-dev and license-py20.
|
| |
|
|
| |
changes suggested by BobW.
|
| |
|
|
| |
definitely change for the 2.0 final release.
|
| |
|
