Re: What is the correct form for saying "licensed under the same terms as Python itself"?

[Mark Summerfield]

Thanks v. much: I'll use the Apache 2.0 license.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What is the correct form for saying "licensed under the same terms as Python itself"?

[Tim Chase]

On 2016-09-14 11:57, Brendan Abel wrote:
> Also, according to the python web site, they only accept
> contributions under the following licenses:
> 
>- Academic Free License v. 2.1
>
>- Apache License, Version 2.0
>
> 
> https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/
> 
> So, if you want your code to be available to the Python team (which
> is what it sounds like), you should use one of those 2 licenses, or
> consider using an even more permissive license (like the MIT
> license) that would not prohibit your project from being relicensed
> under the Apache or Python license.

In today's "questions you've wanted to ask but never got around to,
and somebody else answered them concisely even without you asking"...
I've long been curious about this, but never sufficiently to actually
go hunt down an answer.  And here it is, packaged neatly in my
inbox.  Thanks!

-tkc



-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: What is the correct form for saying "licensed under the same terms as Python itself"?

[Brendan Abel]

Unless you're actually distributing python (as in, the interpreter or it's
source code), you don't need to include the python license or the copyright
notice.  You also don't need a Contributor agreement just to distribute a
python library.  That is more for people who are contributing to core
Python or if your package is being added to the standard library.

Python has a custom license, though it is GPL-compatible.  The python
license has a lot of wording that is specific to python and the PSF, so it
probably doesn't make sense for you to use their license.  Also, according
to the python web site, they only accept contributions under the following
licenses:


   - Academic Free License v. 2.1
   
   - Apache License, Version 2.0
   

https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/

So, if you want your code to be available to the Python team (which is what
it sounds like), you should use one of those 2 licenses, or consider using
an even more permissive license (like the MIT license) that would not
prohibit your project from being relicensed under the Apache or Python
license.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Mark Summerfield 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm developing a small Python software library that I want to publish as
> free software under the same terms as Python itself.
>
> I notice that a few of Python's own files begin like this:
>
> # Copyright 2007 XXX. All Rights Reserved.
> # Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement.
>
> Is this form sufficient?
> Do I need to include the PSF license with the package?
> (Also, I don't actually remember if I've signed a Contributor Agreement.)
>
> Thanks!
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

What is the correct form for saying "licensed under the same terms as Python itself"?

[Mark Summerfield]

Hi,

I'm developing a small Python software library that I want to publish as free 
software under the same terms as Python itself.

I notice that a few of Python's own files begin like this:

# Copyright 2007 XXX. All Rights Reserved.
# Licensed to PSF under a Contributor Agreement.

Is this form sufficient?
Do I need to include the PSF license with the package?
(Also, I don't actually remember if I've signed a Contributor Agreement.)

Thanks!
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list