<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:05, Steven Bethard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steven.bethard@gmail.com">steven.bethard@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc<br>
<<a href="mailto:amauryfa@gmail.com">amauryfa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I noticed that the newly added argparse module has an unusual<br>
> licence header, included below. This is the only file in the Python tree<br>
> that contains an explicit reference to the Apache License,<br>
> and this leads me to some questions:<br>
<br>
</div>Sorry, I forgot to remove this when moving argparse to the stdlib.<br>
There's probably one test\test_argparse too.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> - Did the contributor sign a Contributor agreement? In this case,<br>
> shouldn't the code be marked as "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement",<br>
> as mentioned in the contribution form?<br>
> <a href="http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form" target="_blank">http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form</a><br>
> And then, could this Apache License be removed?<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I have signed a contributor agreement. I was thinking of just<br>
removing the license entirely, but if it's better to replace it with<br>
"Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", that's fine too. Let<br>
me know, and I'll take care of this today.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I say just strip it out. If you leave it the PSF board will get an email from some large corporation at some point in the future about whether you have actually signed an agreement or not. Much easier to simply remove it so people can rightfully assume it is licensed under the PSF license. </div>
</div>