summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/LICENSE
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* merge from branchesAnthony Baxter2005-03-101-3/+5
|
* In paragraph 1, changedTim Peters2004-10-261-2/+2
| | | | | | Python software to this software ("Python")
* Converted some stinking hard tabs. Left the fragrant hard tabs alone.Tim Peters2004-10-231-1/+1
|
* Move to version 2 of the PSF license, approved by the Board earlier today.Tim Peters2004-10-231-12/+12
|
* license updates for 2.4 (cleared with tim, on behalf of the psf)Anthony Baxter2004-07-081-11/+12
|
* Added 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 to the release table. Added 2004 to the list ofTim Peters2004-05-111-3/+5
| | | | copyright years.
* added 2.3.2Anthony Baxter2003-09-301-0/+1
|
* include 2.3.1Anthony Baxter2003-09-231-0/+1
|
* Add historical note for Python 2.2.3Barry Warsaw2003-05-221-0/+1
|
* Update the copyright year.Guido van Rossum2003-01-021-1/+1
|
* Various updates to the version number, on the eve of the 2.3a1 release.Guido van Rossum2002-12-311-11/+12
|
* Update info for impending 2.2.2.Tim Peters2002-10-061-0/+1
|
* At CNRI's request, I'm changing the status of 1.6.1 fromGuido van Rossum2002-04-111-1/+6
| | | | | | not-GPL-compatible to GPL-compatible, with a footnote explaining that RMS disagrees. I'm not going to discuss this further -- both sides (CNRI and RMS) will argue their POV till they're blue in the face.
* Update table of releases.Tim Peters2002-04-081-0/+3
|
* Removed old Digital Creations copyright/license notices (withGuido van Rossum2002-04-041-5/+6
| | | | | permission from Paul Everitt). Also removed a few other references to Digital Creations and changed the remaining ones to Zope Corporation.
* Add 2002 to PSF copyrights.Michael W. Hudson2002-02-271-2/+3
| | | | | Doc/README is odd; it assigns some copyright to the PSF in 2000, when I didn't think it existed...
* A new attempt at rationalizing the "history of the software" section,Guido van Rossum2001-07-171-45/+60
| | | | | | with a table clarifying which releases are GPL-compatible. Also unified the headings for the various licenses.
* Note that 2.0.1 is also a PSF release. (Gregor Hoffleit, SF #433223.)Guido van Rossum2001-06-141-5/+4
|
* Make the license GPL-compatible.Guido van Rossum2001-05-041-16/+5
|
* Tim convinced me to augment the PSF license with a final clause justGuido van Rossum2001-04-131-0/+4
| | | | | like the one in the BeOpen license (and similar to the one in the CNRI license, but with the "click-to-accept" part elided).
* Oops. Need an extra blank line after the PSF license.Guido van Rossum2001-04-131-0/+1
|
* - Inserted the (tentative) PSF license.Guido van Rossum2001-04-131-9/+64
| | | | | | | | - Removed the subsection numbering in section B (each time a new license is inserted in the front, the others have to be renumbered). - Changed the words in the intro to avoid implying that 1.6.1 is GPL-compatible.
* Correct the header over the string of licenses -- it's "PYTHON", notGuido van Rossum2001-04-101-2/+2
| | | | "Python 1.6.1".
* Fix typo in history.Thomas Wouters2001-03-221-1/+1
|
* Updated history. Incorporated 1.6.1 license.Guido van Rossum2001-03-221-67/+76
|
* Add note about copyright ownership and license situation.Guido van Rossum2001-01-181-0/+10
|
* Typo detected by "the miraculous Debian package lint tool "lintian"Guido van Rossum2000-12-121-1/+1
| | | | | | | (http://package.debian.org/lintian), which includes a spellchecker for common typos in control files of packages... You see, we're so paranoid that we even have automatic tools that keep monitoring license files ;-)" (Gregor Hoffleit)
* Place the full text of the CNRI license verbatim in the LICENSE file.Guido van Rossum2000-10-101-5/+67
| | | | Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?
* Since it looks like the dual license clause may be neither necessaryGuido van Rossum2000-09-051-11/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Changes in license names by BobW.Guido van Rossum2000-09-041-3/+3
|
* Properly name and number the BEOPEN OPEN SOURCE PYTHON LICENSEGuido van Rossum2000-09-031-7/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Various edits. Most importantly, added dual licensing. Also someGuido van Rossum2000-09-031-34/+41
| | | | changes suggested by BobW.
* Tentative license. Could still change for the 2.0b1 release and willGuido van Rossum2000-09-011-1/+103
| | | | definitely change for the 2.0 final release.
* Adding a LICENSE file so we can have it in the 1.6 release.Guido van Rossum2000-08-021-0/+1
generated by cgit v0.12 at 2024-11-24 01:37:12 (GMT)