Robert Kern wrote: > On 2009-08-14 01:42 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Robert >> Bradshaw<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM, William Stein<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> I'm also scratching my head a little on that one, and would love to >>>> hear the reasons behind it... >>> Yes, me too. The page in question is here: http://www.python.org/psf/ >>> contrib/ . I think it would be much simpler to just use the BSD and >>> be done with it. >>> >>> On the other hand, ctypes is MIT license, and is now included with >>> Python, so maybe the above is not set in stone. >> What stops you from taking a BSD code and relicense it to Apache? >> >> You don't need any permission, do you? > > If you're being a stickler about licenses, you don't need permission to > re-release someone else's software under the Apache license, but that doesn't > actually make the software fully under the Apache license. The original > author > never agreed to the terms of the Apache license and never made the guarantees > in > those terms, and it is those guarantees that the PSF wants.
As for fparser, I think we can keep PSF out of it for now: fwrap depends on Cython and fparser, but Cython itself will never depend on either At least for the time being it's more a matter of shipping fparser and fwrap with the default Cython download (in the Tools dir). I can definitely see Cython itself being included into Python's stdlib without fwrap following along (as nobody outside of science use Fortran anyway). -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
