On May 10, 2012 5:03 PM, "Chris Brody" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Python foundation will probably want to put the work under the PSF > license. But that will not be possible without permission of the > copyright owners, being Luke and some others. I doubt Luke will > cooperate and don't know about the original authors. > > Personally, I like the Apache license better anyway. I vote to go for > the Apache Software Foundation instead of the PSF. > > Chris
They don't enforce the use of the PSF license. > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Kees Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:54 -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote: > >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Charles Law <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > There has to be some relationship already. For GSOC 2011, I remember > >> > Pyajams wasn't selected by Python was, and we got a contributor that way. > >> > >> what does it actually mean to by "officially" under a foundation, of any kind? > >> > > > > OK. Here's what PSF has to say by words of Van Lindberg: > > > > <quote> > > > > It really is not in the best interest of anyone for the PSF to dictate > > policy. Instead, the PSF would act as a neutral ground that everyone > > could use to just go back to coding. I had in mind the following: > > > > - Announcement of the transfer of the pyjs name and domain to the PSF > > - Transfer of domain registration and DNS to the PSF registrar/nameservers > > - Setup of a pyjs mailman instance on python.org servers > > - Perhaps set up a mercurial repo to be the "official" repo, with hg+ssh > > access to the repo. > > > > This centralizes the disputed assets - name, code, mailing list, repo, > > etc, under the PSF, with PSF administration, but gives everyone enough > > access to code, commit, etc - and fork development, if need be. > > > > </quote> > > > > > >
