[pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1)

[anatoly techtonik]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:22 PM, A.M. Kuchling <amk at amk.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 09:47:33PM +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> What is the trend about AFL?
>> Isn't PSF the official license of all Python stuff?
>
> Yes, the PSF uses its own license for material where the PSF holds the
> copyright.
>
> But when a person signs a contributor form, which is saying "I grant
> the PSF the right to use my code/patch/whatever under some license",
> what license is the *person* -- not the PSF! -- using?

Isn't it a common sense assumption that if you want contribution to be
the part of this particular software you agree that it will be
redistributed alike? If you want other terms - you need to say it
explicitly. I can only see a point when you want to take GPL code from
me and then make it Public Domain in the future. As in this case I may
refuse to contribute, you need to bind me as developer with obscure
license terms.

> They need to use a license that lets the PSF take the code and change
> the license on it to be the PSF license.  The PSF license doesn't
> actually say re-licensing is allowed.  The Apache 2.0 and Academic
> Free licenses both explicitly allow re-licensing, so that's why
> contributors need to pick one of them.

Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really
mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public
Domain at all?
Why AFL?
Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate?
What about CC?
Was there some discussion about it?
Did you ask PSF contributors what license do they prefer (feel more
comfortable) to see core Python stuff in?
Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is
simpler and allow contributions?
What PSF is afraid of in 2010 to maintain such complex license?
Can you specify in simple words what is required from developers and
record it as extension to some simple license like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license?

Please do not give me links. I am not a lawyer and not an English
native, so I'd like to know the official point of PSF in developer's
language. I bet many have question about licensing and AFL in
particular, because I, for example, found AFL to be the most
contradicting license at all:

quoting Wikipedia (the license text is too complex for me):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Free_License
"""
AFL versions 1.2 and 2.1 are not compatible with the GNU GPL.[1]  The
Free Software Foundation does not consider version 3.0 to be
compatible with the GPL[1], though Eric S. Raymond (a co-founder of
the OSI) contends it is GPL compatible.[3]  In late 2002, an OSI
working draft considered it a "best practice" license.[4]  In mid
2006, however, the OSI's License Proliferation Committee found it
"redundant with more popular licenses"[2], specifically version 2 of
the Apache Software License.
"""

If "The mission of the foundation is to foster development of the
Python community" - it should listen to developers, or better allow
them freedom to use, exchange and contribute. Demanding or confusing
them only increases FUD factor with D standing for dissatisfaction.
Licensing preferences in general are often personal and demotivating,
unfortunately.
-- 
anatoly t.