On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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't > > really decide to distribute software under that license... > > > > I don't think the PSF will complain about this status, but wouldn't > something > > like 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/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq > > I 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.)
I am not very familiar with the Apache 2.0 license. But, I am not sure I follow you about BSD/MIT making it difficult to relicense later. Could you elaborate? Also, what are the main reasons for going with the Apache 2.0 license? BSD/MIT seem like they might be better suited for general purpose projects. Just curious. Brian > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php > > Everyone who has made significant contributions should probably approve. > > - Robert > > _______________________________________________ > Cython-dev mailing list > Cython-dev@codespeak.net > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev > > _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
