TODO until python-ldap 2.0.0 final release

[David Leonard]

hi there python-ldap hackers!

ahh ldap. although i don't do much with LDAP any more, i thought it would
help i wrote something about the legal situation.

the only necessary legalese to have in the distribution is a NOTICE that the
software is provided AS IS and is not guranteed from exploding into small
pieces. that is to cover our arses. this is a MINIMUM necessity in any
software today. (It's because software engineering is generally of so
abysmally low quality compared to any other human endeavour ... but that's
another story!)

as for the LICENCE.. i dunno. it is up to the primary authors of each
'contribution' to licence their work. i think the sourceforge project as a
whole is declared publicly as "GPL" in the SF databases, but any BSD or PD
licencing on individual files would still be compatible with that, so its
not a problem to have individual contributions licenced differently.

The LICENSE (sic) file is a bit of a dubious licence .. it's claims public
domain release (ie destroyed copyright) but it then imposes conditions on
use (ie acceptance of the disclaimer). i think that would collapse under
scrutiny.  Well at least there is a disclaimer there  - ie the notice of
user risk, which is the most important thing.

The LICENSE file also appears to conflict with the explicit licencing in
some files (gpl). Perhaps it could be changed to be more of a 'default'
situation.. ie "Unless otherwise specified source files in this distribution
are licenced for any use subject to acceptance of the following disclaimer,
and may be otherwise treated as works in the public domain"...

However, I do NOT want to see anyone FORCED into releasing their work or
fixes into the public domain (although it would be nice). It's the primary
author's right to restrict their work in any fashion that they desire (this
ability stems from their natural copyright).

But any contribution with a licence more restrictive than the GPL should not
be allowed to be committed into the repository! that would be bad.

Why? Because any packaging or distribution of python-ldap would have to
comply with the strongest of licences. (GPL at the moment). And that wouldnt
be fair. today, if someone wants to extract the non-GPLd code for their own
evil corporate frankenstein product, then its up to them to manually go
through and separate the files from each other.. and maybe even go through
the CVS commits (which, depending on their relative size may not merit the
status of a separately licencable 'contrbution'... mmm controversial)

so, if someone wants to clean up the legalese mess, and clarify the
situation, then go for it. But, adding more lines of text to all the files
(as suggested) is a bit of overkill, in my opinion.

another track is to ask all authors for permission to vary their licences to
a common licence... like GPL or BSD... but you couldnt guarantee that
everyone would agree! (or even be contactable!)

d
--
David Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Ströder" <michael at stroeder.com>
To: "Jens Vagelpohl" <jens at zope.com>
Cc: "Python Developer List" <python-ldap-dev at lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: TODO until python-ldap 2.0.0 final release


> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>  > talking about the common license, is there such a beast yet and
>  > you're just looking for someone to go through every file and
>  > make sure it's in there? or is it more about producing the
>  > legalese gibberish itself? :)
>
> Well, a little bit of both.
>
> Ciao, Michael.
>
>
>
>