I think there are a couple of potential action items that have come out
of the discussion.
1. Python License
If there is not already, could there be an explanatory note, something
like (worded to be 'neutral':
"The Python License is complicated because Python has been developed at
various times under the auspices of four different organizations. Each
retains ownership of the code developed or contributed during its tenure
and continues to license its portion of the code under its own Python
license."
Perhaps add: "The PSF cannot unilaterally change this."
It would be nice if a layperson summary could be added:
"Overall, the Python License is similar to the MIT license."
and even "Basically, you can do what you want as long as you do it at
your own risk and do not claim ownership of either the code or the name
Python."
Such paraphrases have been posted on Python-list, though without legal
standing. But I would understand if our lawyer objected that for the
PSF, rather than individuals, to say the same would somehow give the
paraphrase a legal standing it should not have.
2. Contibutor License
I signed this some time ago, but wondered a bit about the discrepancy
between this and the distribution license. I appreciate that Anatoly's
question about the same has elicited an explanation that I can
understand: The PSF requests that we give the PSF a clear,
understandable license that allows the PSF both to distribute our
contributions *and* to re-license it under the complicated license that
it is forced to use for distribution. To put it another way: the
contributor agreement is simple so contributors do not have to bother
(as contributors) with the complications of the distribution license.
Perhaps this could be clearer on the contributor license page.
PS to Anatoly: I hope your questions, at least on the contributor
agreement, are sufficiently well answered that you will sign it, send it
in, and continue contributing. I say this as someone who did read and
think about it and decide there was nothing to worry about because I
would keep ownership of my words, trusted that they would appear in at
least one more Python version, and otherwise did not excessively care
what PSF did with them. I also say this as someone who currently would
not upload a package of mine to the PyPI repository because for that I
*would* care.
-------------------
Comment on trust. Trust works both ways. So does distrust.
Asking contributors to give written licenses in addition to the license
implicit in the act of contribution is an act of distrust. It says
something like "We worry that you might change you mind and sue, and a
court might not immediately toss the suit." So it should not surprise if
the occasional person reacts with overt hurt and distrust.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
