AW: Pure python standard library and License

Discussion in 'Python' started by Markus Schaber, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. Hi, Terry,

    Von: Terry Reedy
    > Your interpretation seems reasonable, but only a paid lawyer (or

    ultimately a judge) can 'confirm' a legal interpretation. Sorry, we
    programmers generally hate the system.

    I also am a programmer, and not a lawyer.

    And our paid lawyer cannot look into the code (where most files do not
    even actually have any copyright header) and magically guess which of
    the files might be covered by the Berkeley license.

    In the meantime, we found which has some better
    descriptions of which license applies to which part of the code, but
    that file is not equal to the LICENSE.txt which was distributed with the
    IronPython installer nor with the Python 2.6 binary distribution we

    This is why he asked us to confirm with the developers of python that
    none of the non-copyright-annotated .py files in the standard library
    are actually covered by the Berkeley license.

    >> That said, I suspect you or your lawyers are worrying too much. None

    of the licensors are looking to play gotcha and I do not know that there
    have been any court cases involving Python.

    > I presume you are using some version of Python 2.

    As the last stable version of IronPython implements Python 2.6, I
    conclude that the installer includes the standard library in a 2.6
    compatible version - however, it seems not to be the version distributed
    with cPython 2.6.6.

    > In 3.2, the license file has the four general licenses (CWI, CNRI,

    BeOpen, PSF) in one section and 16 specific licenses related to various
    library modules (each identified) in another. There is no BSD license
    because bsddb in no longer included.

    That also applies to the published license for cPython 2.6.6 (link
    above) which lacks the Berkeley license, but not the license actually
    installed with the installer (which still contains the bsddb module). It
    identifies itself as:
    | Python 2.6.6 (r266:84297, Aug 24 2010, 18:46:32) [MSC v.1500 32 bit
    (Intel)] on win32

    > You could take the disappearance of the BD licence with the

    disappearance of the bsddb module as confirmation of your hypothesis;-).

    It is a strong indicator, but no guarantee that all the .py files
    without copyright headers are not covered by the Berkeley license.

    Thanks for your efforts!

    Best regards,

    Markus Schaber
    We software Automation.

    3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH
    Markus Schaber | Developer
    Memminger Str. 151 | 87439 Kempten | Germany | Tel. +49-831-54031-0 |
    Fax +49-831-54031-50

    Email: | Web:
    CoDeSys internet forum:
    Download CoDeSys sample projects:

    Managing Directors: Dipl.Inf. Dieter Hess, Dipl.Inf. Manfred Werner |
    Trade register: Kempten HRB 6186 | Tax ID No.: DE 167014915
    Markus Schaber, Mar 4, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Todd Aspeotis
    May 30, 2005
  2. Volker Grabsch
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
  3. Replies:
    Ben C
    Mar 29, 2008
  4. Markus Schaber

    AW: Pure python standard library and License

    Markus Schaber, Mar 4, 2011, in forum: Python
    Markus Schaber
    Mar 4, 2011
  5. Thilina Buddhika

    License of the ruby standard library

    Thilina Buddhika, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Rick DeNatale
    Nov 16, 2007

Share This Page