Source

cpython-withatomic / LICENSE

The branch '2.4' does not exist.
Author Commit Message Labels Comments Date
Anthony Baxter
damn.
Branches
2.4
Tim Peters
In paragraph 1, changed Python software to this software ("Python")
Branches
legacy-trunk
Tim Peters
Converted some stinking hard tabs. Left the fragrant hard tabs alone.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Tim Peters
Move to version 2 of the PSF license, approved by the Board earlier today.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Anthony Baxter
license updates for 2.4 (cleared with tim, on behalf of the psf)
Branches
legacy-trunk
Tim Peters
Added 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 to the release table. Added 2004 to the list of copyright years.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Barry Warsaw
Add historical note for Python 2.2.3
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Update the copyright year.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Various updates to the version number, on the eve of the 2.3a1 release.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Tim Peters
Update info for impending 2.2.2.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
At CNRI's request, I'm changing the status of 1.6.1 from 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.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Tim Peters
Update table of releases.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Removed old Digital Creations copyright/license notices (with permission from Paul Everitt). Also removed a few other references to Digital Creations and changed the remaining ones to Zope Corporation.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Michael W. Hudson
Add 2002 to PSF copyrights. Doc/README is odd; it assigns some copyright to the PSF in 2000, when I didn't think it existed...
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
A new attempt at rationalizing the "history of the software" section, with a table clarifying which releases are GPL-compatible. Also unified the headings for the various licenses.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Note that 2.0.1 is also a PSF release. (Gregor Hoffleit, SF #433223.)
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Make the license GPL-compatible.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Tim convinced me to augment the PSF license with a final clause just like the one in the BeOpen license (and similar to the one in the CNRI license, but with the "click-to-accept" part elided).
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Oops. Need an extra blank line after the PSF license.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
- Inserted the (tentative) PSF license. - 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.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Correct the header over the string of licenses -- it's "PYTHON", not "Python 1.6.1".
Branches
legacy-trunk
Thomas Wouters
Fix typo in history.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Updated history. Incorporated 1.6.1 license.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Add note about copyright ownership and license situation.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Typo detected by "the miraculous Debian package lint tool "lintian" (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)
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Place the full text of the CNRI license verbatim in the LICENSE file. Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Since it looks like the dual license clause may be neither necessary 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.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Changes in license names by BobW.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Properly name and number the BEOPEN OPEN SOURCE PYTHON LICENSE 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.
Branches
legacy-trunk
Guido van Rossum
Various edits. Most importantly, added dual licensing. Also some changes suggested by BobW.
Branches
legacy-trunk
  1. Prev
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Next