| msg47716 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) *  |
Date: 2005-02-07 16:10 |
| details at http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051450.html the code is taken from Debian's dpkg source package, which should at least build on Linux, the Hurd and the kfreebsd-gnu and knetbsd-gnu BSD variants. |
|
|
| msg47717 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2005-02-11 23:43 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 As Jeremy Hylton explains on python-dev, this is unacceptable, as it relies on the notion of a "public domain". I agree, and believe this would make things worse than they are: the statement of the author that his work is in the public domain is legally void. Furthermore, the author does not provide a license (as he believes he doesn't need to), and it is questionable what license precisely can be implied - strictyl speaking, the author maintains the full rights to his work, licensing none. Rejecting the patch. It would be nice if the author could be asked to license the work under, say, the Academic Free License, with an additional permission to anybody to relicense it under any terms they please. |
|
|
| msg47718 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) * |
Date: 2006-04-01 16:31 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=60903 updated the patch with the implementation from http://sourceforge.net/projects/libmd5-rfc/ |
|
|
| msg47719 - (view) |
Author: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)  |
Date: 2006-04-02 04:35 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=29957 That one comes with a zlib/libpng license. As far as I know, this is acceptable for us to include. Does anyone know otherwise? Is there a statement somewhere about which licenses are acceptable for inclusion? |
|
|
| msg47720 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2006-04-02 16:19 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 This entire issue was started not because of Python/PSF concerns, but because of Debian concerns. For Python, I think the following guideline should apply: - get permission to relicense (through contributor's agreement) if feasible; this should be an absolute requirement only for new code. In this case, this is replacing some non-PSF license with another, so the requirement for a copyright agreement should be waived. - the license should permit us to do what we do (in particular, copy the code and create derivative works) - reqirements for mentioning the authors outside the source (e.g. in accompanying documentation) should be avoided. This is an ad-hoc policy, but this code would pass, so I'm fine with it. |
|
|
| msg47721 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) * |
Date: 2006-04-03 16:33 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=60903 > This entire issue was started not because of Python/PSF > concerns, but because of Debian concerns. http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051550.htmlif mentioned it could affect the PSF's use of OSI's trademark. > This is an ad-hoc policy, but this code would pass, so I'm > fine with it. checked in , r43594. |
|
|