[Distutils] License for distribute_setup.py?

[Eric McDonald]

On 11/24/2012 3:30 PM, Alex Clark wrote:
> On 2012-11-24 17:53:08 +0000, Eric McDonald said:

>> I've googled around some (including the archives for this list) and
>> looked through some of the files at
>> https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/src, but have been unable to find
>> out what the licensing terms for the 'distribute_setup.py' script,
> 
> 
> The setup.py loosely defines "PSF or ZPL". I'm not sure if this is a
> result of the fork or not (setuptools setup.py defines "PSF" only, I
> think.)

The 'setuptools' which is part of the 'dsitribute' distribution is
prominently referred to as a fork:
  http://pypi.python.org/pypi/distribute#about-the-fork

>> which
>> is made available to be bundled with other project's sources, are.
> 
> 
> How so?

http://packages.python.org/distribute/setuptools.html#using-setuptools-without-bundling-it

http://python-distribute.org/distribute_setup.py

> 
>> My
>> research discovered that sources for the original PEAK setuptools can be
>> under either the PSF or Zope licenses; I assume that a derivative work,
>> such as distribute (?), would continue to be licensed along those lines.
> 
> 
> Read the license terms:
> 
> - http://old.zope.org/Resources/License/ZPL-2.1
> -
> http://docs.python.org/2/license.html#terms-and-conditions-for-accessing-or-otherwise-using-python

I read the PSF license before my original post. The license only matters
if its terms are intended to be applicable to the Python module in question.

>> But, since
>> this is a file intended to be used in other projects, I think a
>> clarification on the issue would be nice. (Sorry, if I missed something
>> obvious.)
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you say it's intended to be used in other projects.

Answered above.

> In
> any event: IANAL but it seems to me that if you use a portion of
> distribute in your software (i.e. distribute_setup.py) you are using
> distribute, period. I'm not sure if there is any value in making the
> distinction between "a file from the software" and "the software".

I would generally agree with you. This question has more to do with a
file that is being deliberately distributed separately (as well as with
the project sources) with the intent that it be used in other projects.
I am curious whether the distribute devs have the intent to place it
into the public domain or whether they would like to explicitly clarify
the license being applied to this separately-distributed file. I am fine
with including a copy of their license and any desired attribution in my
project, but am seeking guidance on this.

Eric