summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/LICENSE
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
...
* 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 2024-11-22 03:12:18 (GMT)