On 2008-09-09 23:09, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
> 
>> Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license
>> of a 3rd party file that we intend to include in a wide-spread
>> software release, wouldn't it be easier to just add the file
>> and be done with it, like I suggested at the very beginning of
>> this discussion ?
> 
> It's certainly easier to defer the decision than to take action,
> especially when we don't *need* to take action (Python works fine
> whether or not the file is included). 

We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other
3rd party packages which come with the Python Windows installer.

Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
violating copyrights "because Python works without them" is the
right way to move forward, esp. considering that the PSF itself
is all about protecting copyrights ?

> There are so many more important things to do.

True.

> OTOH, contributions are welcome.

I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the
eula.txt file in a reliable way.