[python-ldap] python-ldap licensing ?

[Ilya Etingof]

On 05/05/2017 04:31 PM, Raphaël Barrois wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 5 May 2017 15:40:49 +0200
> Michael Ströder <michael at stroeder.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ilya Etingof wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2017 02:27 PM, Michael Ströder wrote:  
>>>> Amedee Potier wrote:  
>>>>> thanks for your work on this python-ldap project. Great stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> One question : what is the license associated to this product ? Can it be used in
>>>>> commercial applications or not ? What are the obligations a product that would bundle
>>>>> your packages ?  
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the term "Python-style license" introduced by myself is pretty blurry.
>>>>
>>>> But basically the intention is that you can freely use python-ldap just as Python
>>>> itself.  
>>>
>>> From my experience, boldly sticking to one of the standard FOSS licenses
>>> tend to benefit software adoption. It might be even more applicable to
>>> LDAP, as it's more of an enterprise application as opposed to end-user one.  
>>
>> Basically broad adoption was my intention by saying "Python-style license". Again, I had
>> to learn many years ago that this was a beginner's fault. Today I'd choose APL-2.0. But
>> it's nearly impossible to fix that retroactively. That's also one reason why I always
>> recommended a new clean-room implementation for Python 3.
>>
>> Anyway: Feel free to simply use it. David (original author of C wrapper part) and me will
>> never stand in anyone's way using python-ldap.
>>
>> Ciao, Michael.
>>
> 
> 
> There has already been a couple of threads on this topic ;)
> 
> If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that the only obstacle to changing the license would be to collect the
> opinion of every past contributor: their contributions were made within a "redistribution under a python-style license"
> context; if the license were to be changed to, say, APL-2.0, it looked like their agreement could be required before
> changing that?

Does current license allow re-licensing? If it does, logically, could
upstream change its own license leveraging the re-licensing allowance
that current license offers? ;-)

I'm infinitely far from being a lawyer, just trying to debug the
conclusion. ;-)