Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) PSF license

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:27:14 -0400 Terry Reedy wrote: > > First of all, I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I'm not lawyer. > > > > You can use both of GPL and MIT. Users can use your package under it. > > > > On the other hand, when you publish your package, *you* should follow > > PSF license. > > Read

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM Terry Reedy wrote: > On 3/11/2019 10:54 PM, Inada Naoki wrote: > > >> Hello, > >> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup > shutil.copy*() functions: > >> https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 > >> https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 > > You retain

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 05:32:35PM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > If you might want some of this contributed back to Python later on, you > should not use the GPL. Giampaolo can always change the licence of his work later. You can't take away the GPL from work you've already released, but you

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:55 PM Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:01 AM Glenn Linderman > wrote: > >> On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: >> >> Hello, >> some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() >> functions: >>

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:01 AM Glenn Linderman wrote: > On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > Hello, > some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() > functions: > https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 > https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 > I would like to

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On 3/11/2019 10:54 PM, Inada Naoki wrote: Hello, some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() functions: https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 You retain copyright on the code you contributed. I would like to backport both

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:38 AM Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > Hello, > some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() > functions: > https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 > https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 > I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

Things in the standard library are already covered by the PSF license so that is what should be kept on backports from the stdlib to earlier versions. I do recommend keeping your backported stuff and new functionality separate (separate packages ideally, but that'll depend on how intertwined

Re: [Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

On 3/11/2019 4:35 PM, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: Hello, some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() functions: https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can be used on Python 2.7

[Python-Dev] (Licensing question) backport of shutil.copyfile() functionality

Hello, some time ago I contributed a couple of patches to speedup shutil.copy*() functions: https://bugs.python.org/issue33671 https://bugs.python.org/issue33695 I would like to backport both functionalities so that they can be used on Python 2.7 and <3.8 and put it on PYPI. In order to do so I

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Feb 06, 2016, at 04:38 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >Right, sure. The technical problems are still there. Although I'm >fairly confident that Debian's binaries would correspond to Debian's >source - but honestly, if I'm looking for sources for anything other >than the kernel, I probably want to

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Of course if *you* want to you can GPL Python (I think that's now > possible, at one time there was a issue with the CNRI license IIRC), > and then licensees of *your* distribution (but not you!) are required > to

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

Chris Angelico writes: > And even the GPL doesn't require you to distribute the source along > with every copy of the binary. As long as the source is *available*, > it's acceptable to distribute just the binary for convenience. True (and it would apply to frozen Python as long as the source

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > However, the technical problem remains. For example, you mention > Debian. While Debian keeps its source and binary packages very close > to "in sync" on the server, there are several gotchas. For example, >

[Python-Dev] Licensing issue (?) for Frozen Python? [was: More optimisation ideas]

Executive summary: There is no licensing issue because Python isn't copyleft. Stick to the pragmatic *technical* issue of how to reliably provide corresponding source to those who want to look at that source (just because that's how we do things in Python). Emile van Sebille writes: > Except

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has submitted (e.g. pgen2), that's actually come in under Google's contributor

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has submitted

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org writes: A secondary reasoning for some open source licenses might be to prevent others from running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit. The GPL is big on that […] Really, it's not. Please stop spreading this canard. The GPL explicitly and

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

I take ...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit to mean creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code which you can not do with GPL licensed code. Also, while the GPL does not prevent selling copies for profit it does not make it very practical either.

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

Nir Aides n...@winpdb.org writes: I take ...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit to mean creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code which you can not do with GPL licensed code. It's the “proprietary“ which is the distinguishing criterion there.

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:10:09AM +0300, Nir Aides wrote: I take ...running off with the good stuff and selling it for profit to mean creating derivative work and commercializing it as proprietary code which you can not do with GPL licensed code. Also, while the GPL does not prevent

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: That's the point: selling, and commercial activity in general, is explicitly encouraged and permission granted by the GPL. Too many people speak as though it were otherwise. To those who do: Please stop. Please, GPL

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Virgil Dupras hs...@hardcoded.net wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: That's the point: selling, and commercial activity in general, is explicitly encouraged and permission granted by the GPL. Too many people

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:58:26 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Antoine Pitrou writes: Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be understandable by non-lawyer people; This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law systems. Licenses are written in a

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

Jesse Noller jnol...@gmail.com writes: The Python / PSF license won't be changing anytime soon. The existing license for Python suits me fine. Ben could have just have easily responded to Guido in private if he felt that strongly. No. I responded in the same forum where the falsehood was

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

Steven D'Aprano writes: On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:58:26 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: Licenses are written in a formal language intended to have precise semantics, especially in the event of a dispute going to court. What you wrote is precisely analogous to a computer program should be

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to make MacOS X a completely proprietary product. The BSD license allows you to take and never release your mods. It has very little to do with money, IMO. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Nir Aides

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On 7/5/2010 11:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: The point of free software licenses, though (as opposed to proprietary licenses), is not mainly to go to court (to “protect IP”, as the PSF says - quite naively in my opinion); it is to enable trust among people. Yes, that is true. Open source

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On 7/5/2010 8:03 PM, Steve Holden wrote: Neil Hodgson wrote: There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python but this would require agreement from the current rights owners including CWI and CNRI. IIRC not all of the rights owners are willing to agree to a change. That

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

LD 'Gus' Landis writes: Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to make MacOS X a completely proprietary product. That's simply not true. http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1064/. ___ Python-Dev mailing list

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

I stand corrected. Thanks for the pointer Stephen! On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org wrote: LD 'Gus' Landis writes:   Yes. The BSD license on FreeBSD has allowed Apple to   make MacOS X a completely proprietary product. That's simply not true.

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Jul 6, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: You've never used Apple's much-missed Hypertalk, have you? :) on mailingListMessage get the message put it into aMessage if the thread of aMessage contains license wankery put aMessage into the trash

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

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

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: 1. Python License If there is not already, could there be an explanatory note, something like (worded to be 'neutral': As a sub-point, I'd like to see something short explaining how the different licenses in the LICENSE file

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

Terry Reedy wrote: 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

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: For example, if you look at some of the code that even Guido has submitted (e.g. pgen2), that's actually come in under Google's contributor agreement, rather than Guido's personal one. Presumably that was work he did on

[Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone. I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the point, so I can only hope you understand. I do not think PSF does its job well and here is why. 1. Python licensing terms are explained poorly In order to

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

2010/7/5 anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com: Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone. I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the point, so I can only hope you understand. I do not think PSF does its job well and here is why. Please

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:04, anatoly techtonik techto...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry for touching a sore point of if I sound like a boss to someone. I tried to be as constructive as possible, but politeness was not the point, so I can only hope you understand. I do not think PSF does its job well

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote: I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Anatoly, and have tried to overlook your general attitude of being somewhat pushy, but this has pushed me over the edge. If you had some questions about the license, you

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: Normally we don't require contributor agreements for minor patches and other submissions, but given the attitude you have displayed here, I expect we'll make an exception for you (i.e. until you provide evidence of a change

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think of it, and get the answers BSD style and GPL compatible and are happy with that.

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 07:05:58 +1000 Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think of it, and get the answers BSD style and GPL compatible and are happy with that.

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

anatoly techtonik: The file consists of several licenses for multiple versions of Python. It is an unusual mix that negatively affects understanding. A simpler license would be better. There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python but this would require agreement

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

Neil Hodgson wrote: anatoly techtonik: The file consists of several licenses for multiple versions of Python. It is an unusual mix that negatively affects understanding. A simpler license would be better. There have been moves in the past to simplify the license of Python but

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

Antoine Pitrou writes: Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be understandable by non-lawyer people; This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law systems. Licenses are written in a formal language intended to have precise semantics, especially in

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 12:58 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit : Antoine Pitrou writes: Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be understandable by non-lawyer people; This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law systems. Licenses are

Re: [Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote: Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 à 12:58 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit : Antoine Pitrou writes:   Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should be   understandable by non-lawyer people; This is a