On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> > Should we add the MIT license to our benchmarks repo as well? > I'm fine with it, although is there an issue with changing it? I know that the code has no history and thus doesn't strictly need to use the PSF license, but IANAL. -Brett > > cheers > > Antoine. > > > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:16:34 -0400 > Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Antoine's right on this one - just use and redistribute the > upstream > > > >> >> components under their existing licenses. CPython itself is > different > > > >> >> because the PSF has chosen to reserve relicensing privileges for > > > that, > > > >> >> which > > > >> >> requires the extra permissions granted in the contributor > agreement. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > But I'm talking about the benchmarks themselves, not the wholesale > > > >> > inclusion > > > >> > of Mako, etc. (which I am not worried about since the code in the > > > >> > dependencies is not edited). Can we move the PyPy benchmarks > > > themselves > > > >> > (e.g. bm_mako.py that PyPy has) over to the PSF benchmarks without > > > >> > getting > > > >> > contributor agreements. > > > >> > > > >> The PyPy team need to put a clear license notice (similar to the one > > > >> in the main pypy repo) on their benchmarks repo. But yes, I believe > > > >> you're right that copying that code as it stands would technically > be > > > >> a copyright violation, even if the PyPy team intend for it to be > > > >> allowed. > > > >> > > > >> If you're really concerned, check with Van first, but otherwise I'd > > > >> just file a bug with the PyPy folks requesting that they clarify the > > > >> licensing by adding a LICENSE file and in the meantime assume they > > > >> intended for it to be covered by the MIT license, just like PyPy > > > >> itself. > > > >> > > > >> The PSF license is necessary for CPython because of the long and > > > >> complicated history of that code base. We can use simpler licenses > for > > > >> other stuff (like the benchmark suite) and just run with license in > = > > > >> license out rather than preserving the right for the PSF to change > the > > > >> license. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Nick. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Speed mailing list > > > >> Speed@python.org > > > >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed > > > > > > > > > > > > First, I believe all the unalden swallow stuff (including the > runner) is > > > > under the PSF licence, though you'd have to check the repo for a > license > > > > file or bug Jeffrey and Collin. Someone (fijal) will add an MIT > license > > > for > > > > our half of the repo. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > Done. PyPy benchmarks are MIT > > > > > > Great! Then I'm happy with moving PyPy benchmarks over wholesale. Are > there > > any benchmarks that are *really* good and are thus a priority to move, or > > any that are just flat-out bad and I shouldn't bother moviing? > > > > > -- > Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Speed mailing list > Speed@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed >
_______________________________________________ Speed mailing list Speed@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/speed
