Talk:Python Software Foundation License

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance). Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Open (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

I tend to the latter, because both http://www.python.org/psf/license/ and http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.2/license/ specifically refer to The Open Source Initiative: "The Open Source Initiative has certified the Python license as Open Source, and includes it on their list of open source licenses".

Of course, the Python Licence is also a Free Software one, but the semantics of "All Python releases are Open Source... Historically, most, but not all, Python releases have also been GPL-compatible" convinced me to make changes to text of the article and Categories. --xrgtn 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which philosophy model would the license be under? I read through it, and it seems that only one version of Python included the sticky license agreement model like the GPL. So, does that mean it's a more BSD-ideal license, or does it contain some clause I'm missing? Nicholasink 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody know whether the Python Software Foundation License is considered a copyleft license or not? I'm just curious - I read through it, but the agreement was a bit difficult to understand (it mentioned different versions with different restrictions, etc.) Nicholasink 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [originally posted at Talk:Copyleft].Reply

Quoting from License 2.4.2

3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on

or incorporates Python 2.4 or any part thereof, and wants to make

the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then

Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python 2.4.

As U.S. copyright law is based on treating program source as text, a 'brief description' may well be construed as source code diffs!

No wonder the FSF is so happy with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.160.242 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Right, but the license still allows you modify the code in any way you want without making it open source. Nice. 71.110.212.116 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that sounds extremely dubious. How could a "brief summary" possibly be interpreted as the complete work? Feezo (Talk) 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply