Brett Cannon <
brett@python.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <
fijall@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <
alex.gaynor@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <
ncoghlan@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <
brett@python.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <
ncoghlan@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the upstream
> > >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is different
> > >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for
> > that,
> > >> >> which
> > >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor agreement.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale
> > >> > inclusion
> > >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the
> > >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks
> > themselves
> > >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without
> > >> > getting
> > >> > contributor agreements.
> > >>
> > >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one
> > >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe
> > >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically be
> > >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be
> > >> allowed.
> > >>
> > >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd
> > >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the
> > >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they
> > >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy
> > >> itself.
> > >>
> > >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and
> > >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses for
> > >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in =
> > >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change the
> > >> license.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Nick.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nick Coghlan |
ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Speed mailing list
> > >>
Speed@python.org
> > >>
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
> > >
> > >
> > > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the runner) is
> > > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a license
> > > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT license
> > for
> > > our half of the repo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Alex
> >
> > Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT
>
>
> Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are there
> any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or
> any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing?
>