On Apr 25, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Brian Granger wrote: > 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.
My suggestion is based on the Licensing FAQ from Python's website. Specifically, they say if you want code to end up in Python or its standard libraries then it must be licensed under either the Academic Free License or the Apache 2.0 License. I have had some familiarity with the Apache 2.0 License, and it is also more widespread than the other. BSD/MIT license are suitable for a project like this, but if Cython does get accepted into the standard lib, I want to minimize the headaches at that point, and though I'm not a Lawyer, I think relicensing a piece of code requires permission of all copyright holders. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
