Subject: Re: The Python licensing situation.
From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 01:59:25 -0400

"Lindberg, Van" <Van.Lindberg@haynesboone.com> writes:
>I believe it is the second case. I am almost certain the beta license
>was not submitted.

By the way, I did get this, and if we can confirm with our records, we
may replace with the real CNRI Python 1.6.1 license.  However, a cheap
way to solve it all would be to resolve the current discussions in
thread "Re: FOR APPROVAL - Python License Changes", so I'm sort of
letting this clerical-error issue sit tight while we work on that.

-Karl

>On Jun 7, 2011, at 3:07 PM, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lindberg, Van" <Van.Lindberg@haynesboone.com> writes:
>>>> In [3] below, Van proposes a upgrade to the CNRI portion of the
>>>> Python-2.0 license (so this would be in Python-2.1).  The changes are
>>>> mainly about making it GPL-compatible.  They're actually a bit
>>>> interesting, but I don't want to go into them here, because there's a
>>>> larger question first:
>>>> 
>>>> In http://opensource.org/licenses/Python-2.0, OSI *already has* the
>>>> proposed CNRI 1.6.1 (GPL-compatible) text.  So it appears OSI has
>>>> already approved this, or else there is a clerical error.  Does anyone
>>>> know more about this?
>>> 
>>> There *is* a clerical error - the version that was picked up and
>>> mirrored was the beta version of the license. This proposal is to 1)
>>> fix the clerical error, and 2) update the naming so that it is
>>> unambiguous.
>> 
>> So the version that was picked up and posted by OSI is one that PSF had
>> never officially released, and that now PSF is attempting to fix the
>> situation by just releasing it?
>> 
>> I'm still not clear on whether OSI actually approved the unreleased
>> beta, or whether we approved something else but then pasted the wrong
>> (unapproved) text into our own site's page.  I realize that's a question
>> more for OSI people to answer, but if you happen to know the answer,
>> Van, please let me know.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Karl
>CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by 
>U.S. Treasury Regulations, Haynes and Boone, LLP informs you that any 
>U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
>attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
>used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal 
>Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another 
>party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is confidential, 
>may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended 
>recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
>immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.