[pydotorg-www] Vanished link for AFL v2.1

David Goodger dgoodger at gmail.com
Fri May 21 05:07:13 CEST 2010


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:22 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?
>
> 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.

I believe this is mistaken. Neither the Apache license nor the AFL
allow re-licensing. If they do, I can't see it -- please correct me if
I'm wrong on this.

It's the contributor agreement itself which allows the PSF to
re-license the contributions, nothing else.

IIRC (3rd-hand from Tim Peters' explanations, probably), the Apache
license and AFL were chosen for their patent grants.

-- 
David Goodger <http://python.net/~goodger>


More information about the pydotorg-www mailing list