argparse.py is licensed under the Apache License
Hello, I noticed that the newly added argparse module has an unusual licence header, included below. This is the only file in the Python tree that contains an explicit reference to the Apache License, and this leads me to some questions: - Is the Apache license compatible with the Python license? Will this cause problem for some organizations that redistribute Python, possibly with proprietary software? Are there additional constraints? - Does this addition require a paragraph in the python documentation? http://docs.python.org/license.html#licenses-and-acknowledgements-for-incorp... - The Apache License states that:: You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files but r78749 already modified the file (to remove a py3k warning) didn't we break the License? - Did the contributor sign a Contributor agreement? In this case, shouldn't the code be marked as "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", as mentioned in the contribution form? http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form And then, could this Apache License be removed? The first lines of Lib/argparse.py are: # Copyright 2006-2009 Steven J. Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com>. # # Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not # use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy # of the License at # # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 # # Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software # distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT # WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the # License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations # under the License. -- Amaury Forgeot d'Arc
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa@gmail.com> wrote:
I noticed that the newly added argparse module has an unusual licence header, included below. This is the only file in the Python tree that contains an explicit reference to the Apache License, and this leads me to some questions:
Sorry, I forgot to remove this when moving argparse to the stdlib. There's probably one test\test_argparse too.
- Did the contributor sign a Contributor agreement? In this case, shouldn't the code be marked as "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", as mentioned in the contribution form? http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form And then, could this Apache License be removed?
Yes, I have signed a contributor agreement. I was thinking of just removing the license entirely, but if it's better to replace it with "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", that's fine too. Let me know, and I'll take care of this today. Thanks for catching this! Steve -- Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you that? --- The Hiphopopotamus
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:05, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com>wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa@gmail.com> wrote:
I noticed that the newly added argparse module has an unusual licence header, included below. This is the only file in the Python tree that contains an explicit reference to the Apache License, and this leads me to some questions:
Sorry, I forgot to remove this when moving argparse to the stdlib. There's probably one test\test_argparse too.
- Did the contributor sign a Contributor agreement? In this case, shouldn't the code be marked as "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", as mentioned in the contribution form? http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form And then, could this Apache License be removed?
Yes, I have signed a contributor agreement. I was thinking of just removing the license entirely, but if it's better to replace it with "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", that's fine too. Let me know, and I'll take care of this today.
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.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:05, Steven Bethard <steven.bethard@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <amauryfa@gmail.com> wrote:
I noticed that the newly added argparse module has an unusual licence header, included below. This is the only file in the Python tree that contains an explicit reference to the Apache License, and this leads me to some questions:
Sorry, I forgot to remove this when moving argparse to the stdlib. There's probably one test\test_argparse too.
I say just strip it out.
Benjamin beat me to the punch for argparse.py, but I also fixed this in test_argparse.py. Steve -- Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve tell you that? --- The Hiphopopotamus
Yes, I have signed a contributor agreement. I was thinking of just removing the license entirely, but if it's better to replace it with "Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement", that's fine too. Let me know, and I'll take care of this today.
Technically, your *contribution* should have included that line, whereas the code that we (i.e. the PSF) immediately relicense won't. IIUC, and IANAL, the line indicates that you do intend your contribution to be covered by your agreement (just so you couldn't claim we stole it from your laptop, and you didn't really mean to contribute it). Of course, committing it to subversion is an even stronger indication that you wanted to contribute it :-) The PSF then immediately exercises its right to relicense the code, currently under the PSF license. Regards, Martin
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc -
Brett Cannon -
Steven Bethard