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

[Terry Reedy]

M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Steve Holden, Chairman, PSF wrote:
>> Adding a Google-like clause might make us seem less Draconian.
> 
> Here's a proposal for a less controversial text based on the Google
> terms:

I like the third part better.
> 
> """
> PyPI is a service provided by the PSF. In order to be able to distribute the content you upload to
> PyPI to web site users, the PSF asks you to agree to and affirmatively acknowledge the following:
> 
> 1. Content is restricted to Python packages and related information only.
> 
> 2. Any content uploaded to PyPI is provided on a non-confidential basis.
> 
> 3. The PSF is granted an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to reproduce,
> distribute, transmit, display, perform, and publish the content, including in digital form. This
> licence is for the sole purpose of enabling the PSF to display, distribute and promote the content
> on PyPI.
> 
> 4. I represent and warrant that I have complied with all government regulations concerning the
> transfer or export of any content I upload to the PyPI servers in The Netherlands. In particular, if
> I am subject to United States law, I represent and warrant that I have obtained the proper
> governmental authorization for the export of the content I upload. I further affirm that any content
> I provide is not intended for use by a government end-user as defined in part 772 of the United
> States Export Administration Regulations.
> """

The fourth section might scare people off without further explanation 
somewhere, as it could be taken to imply that people have to get a US 
gov permit to upload, which almost no one has done. If this is only 
about crypto software, it should say so. I do not understand the last 
sentence at all as open-source licenses do not usually exclude specific 
users. I cannot affirm something that is complete gobble talk to me.

Terry Jan Reedy