I have news from the PSF's lawyer (Van Lindberg). He writes: """ We don't need to change the Python license as long as all contributors have signed the CLA. Our CLA text actually allows us to relicense contributions under any open source license approved by the board. That means that we can have separate licensing for the examples in the docs.
The wrinkle is that CC0 is not actually an open source license, and likely won't become one for various issues. So could we switch to something like BSD-Zero (https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD) just by having an appropriate motion at the board level and noting that in the docs. """ To me, BSD-Zero looks fine. I am super busy right now so I'm just passing this on. If folks want to move forward with this, I recommend that you (a) propose a PR to the docs (put "[WIP]" in front of the title so it isn't accidentally merged :-), and (b) write an email to the PSF board (CC'ing me or this list) requesting the motion. You'll have to do a bunch of research, but Google knows everything you need to know here (and if you were to ask me, I'd have to ask Google for you -- let's cut out the middle man :-). --Guido On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:47 PM Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:37 PM Todd <toddr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think you might be mixing up two different things. >> >> First is the text of the Pytjon-2.0 license. I don't want to change >> that, or the text of any other license. >> >> Second is the LICENSE file. That file includes the text of the >> Python-2.0 license, the text of every other license used in the project, >> the history licenses, and some other brief information. This is what I am >> suggesting we edit. >> > > That may be how it's used in other projects, but in Python, even that file > is carefully crafted by lawyers whom I don't want to wake up, despite it > being nearly 20 years later. > > >> At the very least the LICENSE file, as I understand it, should contain >> the text of every license used (or say it is in a separate file) and a >> brief note about where it is used if it isn't the "default" license. As I >> mentioned, the current file does exactly that. So we would need to add the >> CC0 license text and at least a very brief explanation of why we added it. >> > > I think that a license that is strictly *less* restrictive as one of the > licenses in that file doesn't need to be mentioned there, since if you > abide by *just* the contents of that file you're still going to be alright. > Adding the CC0 text to that file would just add to the confusion -- to what > exactly would it apply? People could misunderstand this as CC0 applying to > all of Python. > > >> Thinking about it a bit more, considering there is already a license >> history, I think this is a significant enough change that it should >> probably be mentioned somewhere in that history. >> > > Huh, I think we may need to talk to a lawyer at this point. > > >> Of course the other stuff you mentioned should be done, too. Does this >> sound reasonable? >> > > Let me see if I can get Van Lindberg to give his opinion. > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* > <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/> > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3ERY4QOOJPA6TS347CIJ2YD42ZBOG6Z3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
