permission from Paul Everitt).  Also removed a few other references to
Digital Creations and changed the remaining ones to Zope Corporation.

Doc/README is odd; it assigns some copyright to the PSF in 2000, when
I didn't think it existed...

comments regarding the history of Python licensing from Guido.

like the one in the BeOpen license (and similar to the one in the CNRI
license, but with the "click-to-accept" part elided).

- 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.

"Python 1.6.1".

(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)

Who know where the handle will point to tomorrow?

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.

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.

changes suggested by BobW.

definitely change for the 2.0 final release.