Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au writes:
The new wording is one that I can't agree to:
=
[…]
+ liContent is restricted to Python packages and related
information only./li
+ liAny content uploaded to PyPI is provided on a
non-confidential basis./li
+
On 2009-12-08 16:04 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
VanLv...@python.org writes:
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 revoked the PSF's
ability to redistribute something that they previously uploaded.
I think the best
Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-12-08 16:04 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think the best way to ensure this is to constrain PyPI users to
only upload free-software works.
[…]
Who determines the freeness of the software?
The PSF needs to determine that, since they're the ones
Ben Finney wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
Specifically what rights are asserted that you are not willing to
grant?
Start with all the privilege that the PSF's Python license does not
grant to Python users. For instance: modify before redistributing
without notice. If
On 2009-12-08 17:33 , Ben Finney wrote:
Robert Kernrobert.k...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-12-08 16:04 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
I think the best way to ensure this is to constrain PyPI users to
only upload free-software works.
[…]
Who determines the freeness of the software?
The PSF needs
On 2009-12-08 20:22 , Terry Reedy wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
Specifically what rights are asserted that you are not willing to
grant?
Start with all the privilege that the PSF's Python license does not
grant to Python users. For instance: modify
Who audits them now, to ensure that the works don't have license terms
that prohibit some action that the PSF takes?
That's exactly the point of the agreement: we will *not* audit any
content uploaded, simply because we don't have the time to do so.
Instead, the PyPI users must permit the PSF
Terry Reedy wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
Specifically what rights are asserted that you are not willing to
grant?
Start with all the privilege that the PSF's Python license does not
grant to Python users. For instance: modify before redistributing
No one. The usage agreement now gives the PSF the permission to perform
PyPI's function without needing to be concerned about the license terms
at all. That's the entire point of having the usage agreement. The
license of the code is irrelevant given that secondary agreement. If the
uploader
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 his
moral right to
Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com writes:
We have to grant the PSF the rights to distribute the files if we're
uploading them to be hosted on PyPI.
Since the works are free software (IIUC, non-free works are not allowed
to be uploaded to PyPI), then the PSF *has* rights to distribute the
Howdy all,
[I'm asking for PSF feedback on this PyPI issue, hence the crosspost.]
In the Subversion repository for PyPI, this revision appeared:
=
$ bzr info .
Repository checkout (format: 2a)
Location:
repository checkout root: .
checkout of branch:
Ben Finney wrote:
Howdy all,
The new wording is one that I can't agree to:
=
[…]
+ liContent is restricted to Python packages and related
information only./li
+ liAny content uploaded to PyPI is provided on a
non-confidential basis./li
+ liThe
Ben Finney wrote:
Howdy all,
+ liThe PSF is free to use or disseminate any content that I upload on an
+ unrestricted basis for any purpose.
I presume this is the first thing that bothers Ben. The PYTHON SOFTWARE
FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, which I just checked
14 matches
Mail list logo
