[go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:Python Software Foundation License

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Software or Open Source license?

[edit]

I tend to the latter, because both http://www.python.org/psf/license/ and http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.2/license/ specifically refer to The Open Source Initiative: "The Open Source Initiative has certified the Python license as Open Source, and includes it on their list of open source licenses".

Of course, the Python Licence is also a Free Software one, but the semantics of "All Python releases are Open Source... Historically, most, but not all, Python releases have also been GPL-compatible" convinced me to make changes to text of the article and Categories. --xrgtn 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSD family?

[edit]

Which philosophy model would the license be under? I read through it, and it seems that only one version of Python included the sticky license agreement model like the GPL. So, does that mean it's a more BSD-ideal license, or does it contain some clause I'm missing? Nicholasink 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft?

[edit]

Does anybody know whether the Python Software Foundation License is considered a copyleft license or not? I'm just curious - I read through it, but the agreement was a bit difficult to understand (it mentioned different versions with different restrictions, etc.) Nicholasink 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [originally posted at Talk:Copyleft].[reply]

It is a booby trapped copyleft.

[edit]

Quoting from License 2.4.2

3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on
or incorporates Python 2.4 or any part thereof, and wants to make
the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then
Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python 2.4.

As U.S. copyright law is based on treating program source as text, a 'brief description' may well be construed as source code diffs!

No wonder the FSF is so happy with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.160.242 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Right, but the license still allows you modify the code in any way you want without making it open source. Nice. 71.110.212.116 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that sounds extremely dubious. How could a "brief summary" possibly be interpreted as the complete work? Feezo (Talk) 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]