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

David Goodger goodger at python.org
Fri May 21 05:22:41 CEST 2010


In addition to what others have written, some pointed replies:

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 16:53, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

It is explicit, in the contributor form. Go read it. Now, please,
before replying further.

> 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?

No, I believe that is mistaken, as I wrote elsewhere. It's the
contributor agreement that allows re-licensing.

> Why AFL?
> Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate?

I believe that was because of the patent grant clause that the AFL
has, as does the Apache license.

> What about CC?
> Was there some discussion about it?

There was a lot of discussion years ago, before the Creative Commons
existed. And most CC licenses are not appropriate for software anyhow.

> 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?

There's an explanation of the history of the license, written in plain
English, in the license itself. Go read it.

> 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?

No, not without the agreement of all the rights-holders, some of whom
are unwilling to remove their layer from the license stack.

> Please do not give me links.

Please don't be a troll. Yes, you are being a troll.
Do your own research, or hire a lawyer to explain all this if it's
that important to you.
Stop wasting our time.

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


More information about the pydotorg-www mailing list