ebed3f629b
preparation for 2.5a1
2006-04-03 15:03:44 +00:00
b69406dc09
Update general copyright years to 2006.
2006-02-11 15:30:36 +00:00
cfc3471a93
Add 2.4.2 to LICENSE.
2005-10-21 07:53:44 +00:00
94d6201eb0
merge from branches
2005-03-10 13:47:17 +00:00
cb91900f6b
In paragraph 1, changed
...
Python software
to
this software ("Python")
2004-10-26 14:38:48 +00:00
7cb13a971d
Converted some stinking hard tabs. Left the fragrant hard tabs alone.
2004-10-23 03:48:57 +00:00
acaffe65a3
Move to version 2 of the PSF license, approved by the Board earlier today.
2004-10-23 03:43:54 +00:00
bd377a3ece
license updates for 2.4 (cleared with tim, on behalf of the psf)
2004-07-08 05:57:59 +00:00
926bc22c65
Added 2.3.3 and 2.3.4 to the release table. Added 2004 to the list of
...
copyright years.
2004-05-11 18:13:10 +00:00
c2b00811e0
added 2.3.2
2003-09-30 07:07:08 +00:00
9d42a10436
include 2.3.1
2003-09-23 02:42:29 +00:00
7d7f88c007
Add historical note for Python 2.2.3
2003-05-22 15:17:40 +00:00
e55534665f
Update the copyright year.
2003-01-02 16:31:35 +00:00
f122688b3f
Various updates to the version number, on the eve of the 2.3a1 release.
2002-12-31 01:50:07 +00:00
638a1e2dc1
Update info for impending 2.2.2.
2002-10-06 04:04:46 +00:00
7df772b237
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.
2002-04-11 20:54:35 +00:00
b0f3ceaf8b
Update table of releases.
2002-04-08 21:36:47 +00:00
2e1c09c1fd
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.
2002-04-04 17:52:50 +00:00
494cdb6d78
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...
2002-02-27 13:29:46 +00:00
7b4dd76bb5
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.
2001-07-17 20:14:06 +00:00
b2697005e2
Note that 2.0.1 is also a PSF release. (Gregor Hoffleit, SF #433223.)
2001-06-14 19:36:59 +00:00
648b4de3d3
Make the license GPL-compatible.
2001-05-04 18:49:06 +00:00
859d9b5097
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).
2001-04-13 19:41:28 +00:00
575d7f3f3f
Oops. Need an extra blank line after the PSF license.
2001-04-13 15:04:31 +00:00
9ea60c51bb
- 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.
2001-04-13 15:04:00 +00:00
aa815df1e1
Correct the header over the string of licenses -- it's "PYTHON", not
...
"Python 1.6.1".
2001-04-10 03:37:31 +00:00
f5db48e72e
Fix typo in history.
2001-03-22 16:03:53 +00:00
3225c1fa2a
Updated history. Incorporated 1.6.1 license.
2001-03-22 15:41:06 +00:00
71500c8293
Add note about copyright ownership and license situation.
2001-01-18 14:39:49 +00:00
9d64479cb2
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)
2000-12-12 15:24:57 +00:00
ea761c0d9e
Place the full text of the CNRI license verbatim in the LICENSE file.
...
Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?
2000-10-10 14:49:44 +00:00
82271161cc
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.
2000-09-05 03:05:07 +00:00
2e0d3311f7
Changes in license names by BobW.
2000-09-04 00:58:48 +00:00
ac1c818f13
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.
2000-09-03 13:21:38 +00:00
028d06938d
Various edits. Most importantly, added dual licensing. Also some
...
changes suggested by BobW.
2000-09-03 03:13:44 +00:00
ea70b49080
Tentative license. Could still change for the 2.0b1 release and will
...
definitely change for the 2.0 final release.
2000-09-01 19:51:14 +00:00
a6a0ab4bab
Adding a LICENSE file so we can have it in the 1.6 release.
2000-08-02 02:35:08 +00:00
Anthony Baxter
Georg Brandl
Tim Peters
Barry Warsaw
Guido van Rossum
Michael W. Hudson
Thomas Wouters