[IPython-dev] [Ipython-svndiff] 2706 - add zope profile

[Fernando Perez]

Hi all,

[ please all devs with commit rights read this message, there's an
important point at the end regarding licensing]

this contribution is very nice, thanks to Stefan for giving it.  But
I'm a bit concerned about something:4

On 9/4/07, ipython-svndiff at scipy.org <ipython-svndiff at scipy.org> wrote:
> Author: vivainio
> Date: 2007-09-04 10:13:52 -0500 (Tue, 04 Sep 2007)
> New Revision: 2706
>
> Added:
>    ipython/trunk/IPython/Extensions/ipy_profile_zope.py
> Modified:
>    ipython/trunk/doc/ChangeLog
> Log:
> add zope profile
>
> Added: ipython/trunk/IPython/Extensions/ipy_profile_zope.py
> ===================================================================
> --- ipython/trunk/IPython/Extensions/ipy_profile_zope.py        2007-09-04 15:10:37 UTC (rev 2705)
> +++ ipython/trunk/IPython/Extensions/ipy_profile_zope.py        2007-09-04 15:13:52 UTC (rev 2706)
> @@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
> +# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
> +#
> +# File: ipy_profile_zope.py
> +#
> +# Copyright (c) InQuant GmbH
> +#
> +# An ipython profile for zope and plone. Some ideas
> +# stolen from http://www.tomster.org.
> +#
> +# German Free Software License (D-FSL)
> +#
> +# This Program may be used by anyone in accordance with the terms of the
> +# German Free Software License
> +# The License may be obtained under <http://www.d-fsl.org>.
> +
> +__author__ = """Stefan Eletzhofer <stefan.eletzhofer at inquant.de>"""


As per the terms of the license, given in English in:

http://www.dipp.nrw.de/d-fsl/index_html/lizenzen/en/D-FSL-1_0_en.txt

we are supposed to:

1. Ship the full text of the license as well.  This can be added to
the doc/ directory.  Currently we only have a single COPYING file that
contains the IPython license (BSD), but we could make a directory
called licenses/ and include there the various licenses for each piece
that we include, for which the author decided to use a different
license than ours.  The COPYING file would remain, with just a note at
the top (similar to what's already there) directing readers to the
licenses/ directory.

2. Provide startup info.  The license reads:

(2) If license and/or contract terms are
displayed when the Program is installed and/or
started, the following items must also be
displayed:

1. this License;

2. a reference to this License; and

3. a reference to the Entitled Person(s) to the
initial program components used under this
License.

I'm not sure if we're required to interpret that as loading the
license into the license() calls for the core.  We don't display
automatically license info at startup, it's just available to the user
if requested via license().  So I think we're OK, but I'd prefer to
clarify this with the author.

A note to all developers:

I know none of us likes to spend time on this, but we must be careful.
 In the future, before adding code that carries a *new* license into
the code (such as was this case), please FIRST send a message to -dev
so we can clarify these isuses to everyone's satisfaction, and THEN
make the commit.  There have been enough flamewars recently on various
projects (see BSD/Linux in the past week) due to well-intentioned but
sloppy handling of licensing that I want to be very careful with how
we handle code that comes with a new license into our codebase.  The
commit is already done and I think in this case we're OK, but I don't
want any surprises.

Code which is given to us with BSD/MIT/Python license is obviously OK,
since that's what we use already.

Cheers,

f