On 2009-12-08 17:33 , Ben Finney wrote:
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 who are
responsible for further redistributing the work.
This could be made simpler by using the license declaration in the
package metadata.
You snipped the substantive point. Let me rephrase: Who determines the freeness
of the declared license? There are many, many licenses out there.
Attempting to get an *additional*, broader, license from the
uploader strikes me as over-reaching.
Who would audit the packages to make sure that the uploaded code
actually has an acceptable license?
Who audits them now, to ensure that the works don't have license terms
that prohibit some action that the PSF takes?
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 does not have the
rights to give that permission, then PyPI may still have to take down the
offending package, but I believe the existence of the agreement helps them avoid
damages (IANAL and am not sure on this point). Without such an agreement, the
PSF *would* have to audit the packages and their licenses. The usage agreement
is a more efficient way to ensure that the PSF gets the necessary assurance that
it has the right to redistribute the uploaded packages.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
Catalog-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig