On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Guido van Rossum
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> What about the licensing? That look like the BSD license *with*
> advertising clause...
>

I am not a lawyer and I am not intimately familiar with PSF policies,
but this license does not look too dissimilar to the profile module
license:

# Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this Python software
# and its associated documentation for any purpose (subject to the
# restriction in the following sentence) without fee is hereby
granted,
# provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies, and
# that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
# supporting documentation, ...

Actually, I wonder if pydoc profile is technically in violation of the
InfoSeek license.  More likely, however, is that the license text in
the source file is not authoritative and PSF has a more permissive
license to this code.

Skip, can you clarify where the strftime code in your patch came from?
 In your first post you said that it came from Tcl, so it may have
ActiveState copyright on at least portions of it.

On the other hand, unless strftime code is already published under an
acceptable license, I think rewriting this code from scratch would be
easier than tracking down the owners and asking them to contribute it
to python.