Python license (2.3)

[Bengt Richter]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:30:18 -0400, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

>
>"Antoon Pardon" <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message 
>news:slrnd5pqfh.lf2.apardon at rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
>> I see this as my contribution to the communities who has provided me
>> with all kinds of things that are usefull to me. I'm willing to put
>> time into this,
>
>Great.  My human, non-lawyer advice, if I were to give it, would be to 
>worry less and remember that PSF exists to promote Python, not to sue 
>Python promoters.
>
>>From what I understand from what you have written, you have written code 
>for a tutorial based on one module of the library.  I personally would 
>treat this minor extraction differently from a 'derived' work consisting of 
>an alternate interpreter + library, such as from ActiveState, or Enthought, 
>or Jython, or Iron-Python.  I think I would simply put lines in the header 
>something like:
>"Derived from module heapify in the library included with CPython 2.x, (C) 
><include PSA's copyright notice>, available from www.python.org/wherever.
>
As with code, perhaps authoritative and well-done examples for different
situations would be the easiest to take patterns from.

If there were a collection of URLs to various such software and their license
notices in the wiki, perhaps that would help well motivated people like Antoon.

If it is important to get right, maybe the PSF should hire a lawyer to work up
some paradigmatic examples and put them in the wiki?

BTW, I dislike large legal boilerplate (that IIRC I've even seen occupying more
lines than the code it was describing in a few cases).

Is a simple one-line notice referring to the full license text somewhere legally sufficient?
How do you make the reference unambiguous? Md5 or SHA hash?

Regards,
Bengt Richter