On 2009-08-13 19:05 PM, William Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Robert Kern<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2009-08-13 16:25 PM, Kurt Smith wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Kurt Smith<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Dag Sverre >>>> Seljebotn<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~150K compressed. >>>>>> >>>>>> That seems acceptable to me. Given that you've volunteered to >>>>>> maintain it, and numerics certainly is an important audience of >>>>>> Cython, it seems to make sense to bundle it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good -- I sent an email to Pearu Peterson on the f2py-dev list to get >>>> his official approval, to check on licensing compatibilites, and to >>>> sort out the nuts and bolts of versioning fparser once it stabilizes, >>>> etc. >>> >>> I have Pearu's permission to include fparser in Cython. Fparser is >>> BSD licensed, and I'll be reading through it to see what requirements >>> there are. If the following site is authoritative: >>> >>> http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html >>> >>> then it looks like we won't have licensing issues. >> >> It would be worth asking Pearu to explicitly give his code to you under the >> Apache license. He doesn't have to relicense fparser in general, but just >> give >> it to you under that license so you can correctly claim that all of Cython is >> Apache licensed. >> >> It's an annoying process for substantially similar licenses, but it will >> make a >> few things easier down the line. In particular, if Cython is still serious >> about >> inclusion into the standard library, this is a necessity since the PSF will >> accept Apache-licensed code and not BSD-licensed code. > > I'm just curious. Why does the PSF reject BSD-licensed code, but > accept Apache-licensed code, given that the Apache license is vastly > more restrictive than BSD? I can understand this, but find it > surprising.
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/ """ The choice of initial license originates from the advice of our lawyer: the initial licenses should be open source, they should be clear and explicit in what they permit, and they should not only include a copyright grant (in particular to reproduce and prepare derivative works), but also a license grant to all relevant patents that the contributor holds. As most contributors do not hold any patents (at least none relevant for the contribution), the patent grant is likely irrelevant for most contributors. """ If you want to be cynical about it, it basically boils down to the personal preference of the PSF's legal counsel, Larry Rosen, not coincidentally the author of the Academic Free License, the other accepted license. Something that the Cython team may want to consider while the contributor list is manageable is to get agreements from all contributors to dual-license their code for BSD and Apache. The BSD license grant allows GPLv2 mixing and the Apache license grant allows eventual stdlib inclusion, if that is still on the agenda. -- 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 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
