using the PSF license for one's code

[Martin v. Loewis]

"phil (at) linux2000.com" <"phil (at) linux2000.com"> writes:

> So where does this leave software such as PythonCard ?
> (http://pythoncard.sourceforge.net) - this is released "under the
> Python 2.2 license".

That statement may or may not be legally relevant, IANAL. However, I
think that doesn't matter: what matters is whether users get an idea
what the author of the package allows them to do with the software. If
the user and the author have the same understanding of what is
permitted, and users stick to these rules, the legal standing of the
license is irrelevant.

If users do things that the author dislikes, and the authors brings
that up to court, the court will decide. On thing it is clear in that
case: the lawyers win.

> I've been apalled (and my apologies for straying slightly off-topic
> here) by the amount of fragmentation that exists in terms of the
> licenses deemed to be either "Open source compatible" and/or "GPL
> compatible" on the OSF website.
> 
> The open source community seems to be shooting itself in the foot on
> this particular issue, as far as I can see.

I very much doubt that. People developing and using open source
software are much more bound by social constraints than by legal
ones. They interpret licenses themselves (without having lawyers
analyse them), to get the spirit of the license. If some organization
apparently violates some license, the community gets upset, and the
organization reconsiders.

Regards,
Martin