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

Ben Finney ben+python at benfinney.id.au
Wed Dec 9 00:33:12 CET 2009


Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> writes:

> On 2009-12-08 16:04 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > I think the best way to ensure this is to constrain PyPI users to
> > only upload free-software works.
[…]

> Who determines the freeness of the software?

The PSF needs to determine that, since they're the ones who are
responsible for further redistributing the work.

This could be made simpler by using the license declaration in the
package metadata.

> > Attempting to get an *additional*, broader, license from the
> > uploader strikes me as over-reaching.
>
> Who would audit the packages to make sure that the uploaded code
> actually has an acceptable license?

Who audits them now, to ensure that the works don't have license terms
that prohibit some action that the PSF takes?

-- 
 \      “[Entrenched media corporations will] maintain the status quo, |
  `\       or die trying. Either is better than actually WORKING for a |
_o__)                  living.” —ringsnake.livejournal.com, 2007-11-12 |
Ben Finney



More information about the Catalog-SIG mailing list