On Apr 25, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Hi,I must admit I've never read the PSF license until today. However, Cython is officially licensed under the PSF license. That doesn't really make sense, as this license is specific to Python itself. It is a license between the PSF and the users of Python - however, we can't speak for the PSF, and thus can'treally decide to distribute software under that license...I don't think the PSF will complain about this status, but wouldn't somethinglike the MIT or BSD license help us get back into state "legal" here?
Good point. We chose the PSF license because we want to make it easy to become part of the Python standard library (or at least be used everywhere Python itself can be), and didn't want the hassle of worrying about re-licensing later on.
As you mention, and is explained in more detail here, PSF doesn't work. http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaqI propose that we go with the Apache 2.0 as per their suggestion (MIT and BSD are nice, but then would we worry about having to re-license later on? I'm not sure.)
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Everyone who has made significant contributions should probably approve. - Robert
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
