The contributor forms at http://localhost:8005/psf/contrib/ linked to http://opensource-definition.org/ for the texts of the Academic Free License 2.1 and Apache License 2.0 texts. opensource-definition.org has been domain-squatted and now shows generic links. I've updated the links on python.org. The Apache 2.0 license was easy to find, but the AFL 2.1 was difficult; I ended up linking to http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.1.php, which is an obsolete mirror of opensource.org. This is because the current AFL version is 3.0 and 2.1 is therefore obsolete. Question: should I add a copy of the AFL 2.1 to python.org? Or does the PSF want to update the contrib forms to use AFL 3.0 instead? --amk
What is the trend about AFL? Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff? -- anatoly t. On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:17 PM, A.M. Kuchling <amk@amk.ca> wrote:
The contributor forms at http://localhost:8005/psf/contrib/ linked to http://opensource-definition.org/ for the texts of the Academic Free License 2.1 and Apache License 2.0 texts.
opensource-definition.org has been domain-squatted and now shows generic links.
I've updated the links on python.org. The Apache 2.0 license was easy to find, but the AFL 2.1 was difficult; I ended up linking to http://www.samurajdata.se/opensource/mirror/licenses/afl-2.1.php, which is an obsolete mirror of opensource.org. This is because the current AFL version is 3.0 and 2.1 is therefore obsolete.
Question: should I add a copy of the AFL 2.1 to python.org? Or does the PSF want to update the contrib forms to use AFL 3.0 instead?
--amk
_______________________________________________ pydotorg-www mailing list pydotorg-www@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
On 20/05/2010 19:47, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What is the trend about AFL? Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff?
Sure, but the way it works is that contributors license their work to the PSF under an open source license first - and the PSF license is a terrible license that comes about through the horrors of the Python intellectual property history. We get contributors to license their contributions under more sensible licenses like the Academic free license or the apache license. See: http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ Heh, we should *probably* do the same for major contributions to the website as well... Michael -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What is the trend about AFL? Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff?
Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the copyright. But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using? They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why contributors need to pick one of them. --amk
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling <amk@amk.ca> wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What is the trend about AFL? Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff?
Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the copyright.
But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license", what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using?
They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change the license on it to be the PSF license. The PSF license doesn't actually say re-licensing is allowed. The Apache 2.0 and Academic Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why contributors need to pick one of them.
I believe this is mistaken. Neither the Apache license nor the AFL allow re-licensing. If they do, I can't see it -- please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It's the contributor agreement itself which allows the PSF to re-license the contributions, nothing else. IIRC (3rd-hand from Tim Peters' explanations, probably), the Apache license and AFL were chosen for their patent grants. -- David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the trend about AFL?
I don't know, but I expect it's not hugely popular yet. I have no idea what the differences between 3.0 and 2.1 are.
Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff?
That is the license under which the PSF licenses everything to 3rd parties. There are a number of reasons why we don't recommend others use this license; there are also a number of reasons why we can't change the license the PSF itself uses. So we want others to license their stuff to the Python using a more generally accepted license. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Guido van Rossum wrote:
That is the license under which the PSF licenses everything to 3rd parties. There are a number of reasons why we don't recommend others use this license; there are also a number of reasons why we can't change the license the PSF itself uses.
I'll just add to this some history: We certainly tried to get rid of some of the license stack in the PSF license but it's at least difficult and more likely hopeless. Some of the entities involved no longer exist and it's not clear where their copyright ownership rights went. This means we're stuck with the licenses under which we received the various parts of Python and cannot ask the copyright holder(s) to relicense it to us under a different license. Actually, the way to get rid of some of the stack is to completely rewrite the code covered by those portions. Maybe that would eventually happen, although it would take some doing to be sure the old code is really gone. It's just much safer and easier not to try this. Anatoly, I hope you've figured out the differences between copyright ownership and licensing from the other responses. Copyright ownership is the sudo of intellectual property. You can't do everything but you can do a lot. Also, contributing to the PSF does not mean giving up your copyright ownership. I got the impression maybe these things were at the core of your objections/questions/concerns. I do feel like this is all made clear on http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ -- if not suggestions for improving that would certainly be constructive. - Stephan
participants (7)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
A.M. Kuchling -
anatoly techtonik -
David Goodger -
Guido van Rossum -
Michael Foord -
Stephan Deibel