M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Steve Holden, Chairman, PSF wrote:
Adding a Google-like clause might make us seem less Draconian.
Here's a proposal for a less controversial text based on the Google
terms:
I like the third part better.
"""
PyPI is a service provided by the PSF. In order to be able to distribute the
content you upload to
PyPI to web site users, the PSF asks you to agree to and affirmatively
acknowledge the following:
1. Content is restricted to Python packages and related information only.
2. Any content uploaded to PyPI is provided on a non-confidential basis.
3. The PSF is granted an irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive
license to reproduce,
distribute, transmit, display, perform, and publish the content, including in
digital form. This
licence is for the sole purpose of enabling the PSF to display, distribute and
promote the content
on PyPI.
4. I represent and warrant that I have complied with all government regulations
concerning the
transfer or export of any content I upload to the PyPI servers in The
Netherlands. In particular, if
I am subject to United States law, I represent and warrant that I have obtained
the proper
governmental authorization for the export of the content I upload. I further
affirm that any content
I provide is not intended for use by a government end-user as defined in part
772 of the United
States Export Administration Regulations.
"""
The fourth section might scare people off without further explanation
somewhere, as it could be taken to imply that people have to get a US
gov permit to upload, which almost no one has done. If this is only
about crypto software, it should say so. I do not understand the last
sentence at all as open-source licenses do not usually exclude specific
users. I cannot affirm something that is complete gobble talk to me.
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
