Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/23/2010 5:03 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Indeed, that's what we are discussing here. And, I can only
repeat myself: anybody can download the data and redistribute
it in any way they like. This is how it is, and how it should
be.
Many sites
On 1/23/2010 7:46 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
That's a tricky one: That extra sentence I further affirm...
introduces a restriction that goes beyond what US developers
normally have to follow. And the way it is written, it also
applies to developers not affected by US law.
However, that
On 1/25/2010 9:39 AM, VanL wrote:
Also see MvL for the thought that went into the current wording. As I
have stated before, the wording doesn't grant the PSF the authority to
relicense or make derivative works of the content. Rather, it allows the
PSF (and mirrors, and people who use PyPI) to
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In order to make it clear that PyPI data may only be mirrored
for redistribution with PSF authorization, we need to add proper
notices to PyPI and also prevent such mirroring technically
(if possible).
However, I don't think this is factually the case: *anybody*
can
However, I don't think this is factually the case: *anybody*
can indeed mirror the data in any way they like. This is how
it is, and how it should be.
Sure, downloading things from PyPI is its main intent and
that's also what the proposed PyPI terms allow the PSF to
do.
However, there's
They can technically, yes, but the fact that they can doesn't
map to any kind of permission for doing so.
Most certainly it does: everybody is permitted to create mirrors.
Otherwise, anyone could take any content on the web and copy it
freely and use it for their own purposes, without having
The second version does seem much more user-friendly, somehow, and
should calm fears about potential abuse of content by the Foundation.
Are we going to go with that?
Not without legal advise. I would hope that users will also get
permission to make copies of the content uploaded to PyPI,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The second version does seem much more user-friendly, somehow, and
should calm fears about potential abuse of content by the Foundation.
Are we going to go with that?
Not without legal advise. I would hope that users will also get
permission to make copies of the
On 1/23/2010 5:03 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Indeed, that's what we are discussing here. And, I can only
repeat myself: anybody can download the data and redistribute
it in any way they like. This is how it is, and how it should
be.
Many sites have the restriction that people can download for
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/23/2010 5:03 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Indeed, that's what we are discussing here. And, I can only
repeat myself: anybody can download the data and redistribute
it in any way they like. This is how it is, and how it should
be.
Many sites have the restriction that
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
[..]
Those scripts already exist and are in usage in the tools that are
mirroring pypi. They are not rsync but http calls, but that's about it.
Ok, so that wheel has already been reinvented :-)
That's
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Like I said: the PEP can be used to document the technical requirements
of being accepted as official mirror, but it doesn't cover any
of the legal requirements the PSF will need to put in place in
order to prevent unofficial mirrors
Ok - as we are discussing official
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
What about restricting the mirrors to the non web part in that case ?
I think MAL is talking about a completely different setup: the
unofficial mirror. The unofficial mirror doesn't follow any protocol;
it's just a mirror of PyPI using the standard API to fetch all
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
OK. That's not what I understood since he proposed a cloud system run
by the PSF for the PyPI mirrors. Which implied (to me) those were
official mirrors.
For some reason (which I don't understand) MAL is opposed to the notion
of mirrors. If the complaints about a
In order to make it clear that PyPI data may only be mirrored
for redistribution with PSF authorization, we need to add proper
notices to PyPI and also prevent such mirroring technically
(if possible).
However, I don't think this is factually the case: *anybody*
can indeed mirror the data in
At 11:11 PM 1/22/2010 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In order to make it clear that PyPI data may only be mirrored
for redistribution with PSF authorization, we need to add proper
notices to PyPI and also prevent such mirroring technically
(if possible).
However, I don't think this is
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Sure, the PEP can be used as basis for the decision process, but
someone still has to make the decision to add a mirror or not
and these people should be appointed to by the PSF - much like we
have an infrastructure committee to see after the python.org site.
The
Steve Holden wrote:
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
2010/1/20 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
Of course, there's also a human dimension : we suppose that the people
running the mirror are people we can trust because they can
technically do malicious things in the mirror since we don't really
have any
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
[..]
I have in the past suggested that we consider hosting services at
diverse places. I'd have thought this was a prima facie case for
distributed hosting facilities. If we have that, we have no need for
mirrors, but
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Sure, the PEP can be used as basis for the decision process, but
someone still has to make the decision to add a mirror or not
and these people should be appointed to by the PSF - much like we
have
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
[..]
Sure, we could do all those things, but such a process will
cause a lot of admin overhead on part of the PSF.
Which process ? the non-web mirroring requires no effort/work from the PSF.
The
Like I said: the PEP can be used to document the technical requirements
of being accepted as official mirror, but it doesn't cover any
of the legal requirements the PSF will need to put in place in
order to prevent unofficial mirrors
Ok - as we are discussing official only mirrors, why are
What about restricting the mirrors to the non web part in that case ?
I think MAL is talking about a completely different setup: the
unofficial mirror. The unofficial mirror doesn't follow any protocol;
it's just a mirror of PyPI using the standard API to fetch all data
available. People have
explaining some of the reasons for part 4.
Thanks,
Subject:
Re: [Catalog-sig] [PSF-Board] Troubled by changes to PyPI usage agreement
From:
M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com
Date:
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:45:10 +0100
Agreed. Until this issue is resolved we can't allow (public) third-party
mirrors. Given the recent adverse reactions to PyPi changes we should be
careful not to cause any further offense.
regards
Steve
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
None that I am aware of, but Martin is the one
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Agreed. Until this issue is resolved we can't allow (public) third-party
mirrors. Given the recent adverse reactions to PyPi changes we should be
careful not to cause any further offense.
Perhaps the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0381/#how-a-client-can-use-pypi-and-its-mirrors
I could add in the PEP the fact that the mirror has to be accepted by the PSF
See also :
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
[..]
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0381/#how-a-client-can-use-pypi-and-its-mirrors
I could add in the PEP the fact that the mirror has to
Steve Holden wrote:
Agreed. Until this issue is resolved we can't allow (public) third-party
mirrors. Given the recent adverse reactions to PyPi changes we should be
careful not to cause any further offense.
I quite disagree on that statement; I see the issue of mirrors as
completely
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM, M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Agreed. Until this issue is resolved we can't allow (public) third-party
mirrors. Given the recent adverse reactions to PyPi changes we should be
careful not to cause any further
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Agreed. Until this issue is resolved we can't allow (public) third-party
mirrors. Given the recent adverse reactions to PyPi changes we should be
careful not to cause any further offense.
I quite disagree on that statement; I see the issue of
Of course, there's also a human dimension : we suppose that the people
running the mirror are people we can trust because they can
technically do malicious things in the mirror since we don't really
have any real protection (*yet*).
That's not true: users of mirrors can verify that the
2010/1/20 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
Of course, there's also a human dimension : we suppose that the people
running the mirror are people we can trust because they can
technically do malicious things in the mirror since we don't really
have any real protection (*yet*).
That's not
Hi Steve,
has there been any progress on this ?
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:
PyPI is a service provided by the PSF. In
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
Terry Reedy wrote:
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.
Thanks.
PyPI is a service provided by the
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:
PyPI is a service provided by the PSF. In order to be able to distribute the
content you upload to
PyPI to web site
Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
VanL wrote:
Doug Hellmann wrote:
We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
uploading them to be hosted on PyPI. Does the new wording imply
that
we're licensing the use of that code under those terms, or just
granting distribution rights the
Laura Creighton wrote:
I think it would be better to use the language from the EUPL
see: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31979
In particular, I think that it is much better to say something like:
In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to
exercise
VanL wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Those are likely only a handful of users who'd need the
added permissions and it doesn't explain the need for
an irrevocable license.
The irrevocability is there to protect the PSF. It is so that no one can
claim later that they got mad at the PSF and
Adding a Google-like clause might make us seem less Draconian.
regards
Steve
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
VanL wrote:
M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Those are likely only a handful of users who'd need the
added permissions and it doesn't explain the need for
an irrevocable license.
The irrevocability
Doug Hellmann wrote:
We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
uploading them to be hosted on PyPI. Does the new wording imply that
we're licensing the use of that code under those terms, or just
granting distribution rights the file containing the code? It feels
VanL wrote:
Doug Hellmann wrote:
We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
uploading them to be hosted on PyPI. Does the new wording imply that
we're licensing the use of that code under those terms, or just
granting distribution rights the file containing the
: [Catalog-sig] [PSF-Board] Troubled by changes to PyPI
usage agreement
VanL wrote:
Doug Hellmann wrote:
We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
uploading them to be hosted on PyPI. Does the new wording imply
that
we're licensing the use of that code under
44 matches
Mail list logo
