Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>>>Yes, the license text and the copyright notice must be attached. It >>>>>doesn't mean that the PSF license is the operative one for the >>>>>derivative work. >>>> >>>> >>>>Why attach a license that is not operative. That doesn't make sense >>>>to me and will IMO just create confusion. >>> >>>Because it's not your code. The tiny obligation that you have to satisfy >>>is to say that some of the code comes from someone else and is available >>>under such-and-such a license. That's it. You can keep the code hidden, >>>you can charge whatever you like for it, but you have to attribute it >>>properly. Open source licenses don't get much less restrictive than this. >> >> >> Well maybe this is a semantic problem. I wouldn't use the word "attach" >> here. > > Fair enough. The license text is included *for reference*, not because > it is *the* license for the derived work. In fact, it *can't* be the > license of the derived work because you are not the PSF. > >> So what I seem obligated to do, is 1) Mentioning this came >> from the python distribution and 2) explain where this distribution can >> be attained and under what license. > > The minimum is: > > 1) Put the copyright notice in. > 2) Reference a copy of the PSF License. (Practically speaking, a URL > will probably do.) > 3) List the modifications you made. > 4) Put your copyright notice in and whatever terms you want to apply. > >>>Of course, IANAL and TINLA, so if you want real legal advice instead of >>>advice from random newsgroup bums like myself, you should talk to a lawyer. >> >> >> Well if it comes so far I have to consult a lawyer I'd rather not publish >> it in the first place. > > Then take the (free) advice that you asked for.
I'll do that and I appreciate your time in giving it. > And please do read Rosen's book. I started already. >> The only reason I'm concerned is that this is to be part of a tutorial >> and I prefer not to burden those who read the tutoral with any kind of >> license. As far as I'm concerned people reading the tutorial can use >> any code provided with it in any way they see fit. > > You can't *quite* go that far if you are deriving code from Python, but > it's about as close as you can get. You still have those light > restrictions about attribution and notification of changes. I'm not sure I follow. As far as I understand, I can license the result however I see fit, as long as I go by the conditions for using the original code. So it seems I can use a license so that the readers of the tutorial don't have to be concerned in how they use the code. >> 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, but if I have to spend money because it is impossible >> otherwise to find out how to contribute legally, that is a hurdle >> I'm reluctant to take. > > You could take a look at what other people are doing. Most of us here > are writing and releasing software derived from Python, legally so and > without complication. I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should be free to use any code included in any way they see fit. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list