[python-ldap] python-ldap licensing ?

[Amedee Potier]

Le 05/05/2017 à 16:38, Ilya Etingof a écrit :
>
> 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. ;-)
>
Thank you all !! Much appreciated your quick (and positive) response. 
I'll definitely make sure to include all the due credits in the 
documentations. This is the least you deserve!

Have a great week-end,

Amedee