Hello,
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
Thank you
Antoine.
On 04.04.2013 18:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
They need to sign a contributor agreement and add the corrsponding note to the source code file(s). That's all that's needed.
On Apr 04, 2013, at 06:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
That's a good question. In optimism for a positive pronouncement, I'm preparing a 4.0 version of flufl.enum, which is currently LGPLv3+. I intend to do the next release under an ASLv2.0 license in order to be compatible with the contributor agreement. It's too much of a PITA for me to do dual licenses and since ASLv2.0 is GPL-compatible, that seems fine enough for me.
Is that enough for contribution to Python?
-Barry
On 4 Apr 2013, at 18:03, Barry Warsaw barry@python.org wrote:
On Apr 04, 2013, at 06:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
That's a good question. In optimism for a positive pronouncement, I'm preparing a 4.0 version of flufl.enum, which is currently LGPLv3+. I intend to do the next release under an ASLv2.0 license in order to be compatible with the contributor agreement. It's too much of a PITA for me to do dual licenses and since ASLv2.0 is GPL-compatible, that seems fine enough for me.
Is that enough for contribution to Python?
If the copyright is owned by you then you can donate the code to Python under the Apache license (as per the contributor agreement) *and* release it separately under *whatever* license you want. No need to change the license.
Michael
-Barry _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
-- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
On Apr 04, 2013, at 06:08 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
If the copyright is owned by you then you can donate the code to Python under the Apache license (as per the contributor agreement) *and* release it separately under *whatever* license you want. No need to change the license.
Cool. Thanks. -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/04/13 18:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
They could sign the contributor agreement and then propose a patch for inclusion in Python.
Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ Twitter: @jcea _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
On 4/4/2013 12:53 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 04.04.2013 18:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
They need to sign a contributor agreement and add the corrsponding note to the source code file(s). That's all that's needed.
I believe license questions can also be directed to the new legal-sig list http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig
Le jeudi 04 avril 2013 à 15:39 -0400, Terry Reedy a écrit :
On 4/4/2013 12:53 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
On 04.04.2013 18:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
In http://bugs.python.org/issue17618, I proposed adding a base85 implementation to Python. Mercurial already has one (under the GPL), so I wrote to the authors (Brendan Cully and Mads Kiilerich) and got their informal approval for relicensing and inclusion in Python.
My question is the following: does anything formal need to be done to validate the relicensing? If yes, what?
They need to sign a contributor agreement and add the corrsponding note to the source code file(s). That's all that's needed.
I believe license questions can also be directed to the new legal-sig list http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig
Thanks, I had forgotten about that.
Regards
Antoine.
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Jesus Cea -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Michael Foord -
Terry Reedy