[Catalog-sig] Troubled by changes to PyPI usage agreement

Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Sun Dec 6 02:06:54 CET 2009

Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at gmail.com> writes:

> We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
> uploading them to be hosted on PyPI.

Since the works are free software (IIUC, non-free works are not allowed
to be uploaded to PyPI), then the PSF *has* rights to distribute the

The new “usage agreement” wording is asserting much more than that,

Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:

> VanL wrote:
> > This does not give the PSF the right to relicense your work, nor to
> > create derivative works -- just to pass it on to anybody who happens
> > to wander by the PyPI web page.
> To me, 'unrestricted use' means just that the PSF *can* do all these
> things, and anything else it can dream up.

Yes, exactly.

Surely better than claiming some extra rights, the rights already in the
works should be enough:

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes:

> I think the premise is that any FLOSS license (as recognized by the
> OSI or, similarly, by the FSF) allows to “use and disseminate [...] on
> an unrestricted basis for any purpose”.
> Perhaps explicitly restricting PyPI to FLOSS would be simpler than
> this kind of legalese?

That seems the best option to me. If the PSF were to require only
free-software works on PyPI, this issue would be solved AFAICT.

 \       “Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of |
  `\          others.” —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list