Doug Hellmann <[email protected]> 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 files. The new “usage agreement” wording is asserting much more than that, though. Terry Reedy <[email protected]> writes: > VanL wrote: > > This does not give the PSF the right to relicense your work, nor to > > create derivative works -- just to pass it on to anybody who happens > > to wander by the PyPI web page. > > To me, 'unrestricted use' means just that the PSF *can* do all these > things, and anything else it can dream up. Yes, exactly. Surely better than claiming some extra rights, the rights already in the works should be enough: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> writes: > I think the premise is that any FLOSS license (as recognized by the > OSI or, similarly, by the FSF) allows to “use and disseminate [...] on > an unrestricted basis for any purpose”. > > Perhaps explicitly restricting PyPI to FLOSS would be simpler than > this kind of legalese? That seems the best option to me. If the PSF were to require only free-software works on PyPI, this issue would be solved AFAICT. -- \ “Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of | `\ others.” —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
