using the PSF license for one's code

[Bengt Richter]

On 6 Nov 2002 18:29:13 -0800, donnal at donnal.net (Donnal Walter) wrote:

>"Anton Vredegoor" :
>> To me it isn't that simple. From my perspective
>> the GPL is using the same kind of "weapons" to
>> defend it's followers against the "evil"
>> closed sourcerers.
>
>> Using the same kind of weapons as the enemy risks
>> becoming oneself that what is feared. I think this is
>> meant by "not resisting evil" and "turning the other
>> cheek" and such ideas as one can find in the old books.
>
>As the OP, I did not intend to start yet another flame war regarding
>the merits and/or evils of "copyleft". I was merely puzzled by the
>fact that the Python License is on the list of acceptable licenses one
>can choose for a SourceForge project, but I couldn't figure out how I
>could use the PSF License without modification. Martin confirmed the
>fact that I can't. It appears, then, that a number of developers
>simply use "Python License" as a well-understood synonym for BSD-style
>license, which is fine with me. But I figure I might as well say what
>I mean, so my options are GPL or BSD, the relative merits
>notwithstanding.
>
>Having said this, I see both as valid options in my situation. I am
>working on two different kinds of projects. The first project is to
>develop a kind of toolset and notation for building custom clinical
>applications. I had planned to use the PSF License and now plan to use
>the BSD license for this project, as I want to encourage its
>widespread use by not using a restrictive license. I only hope that
>*some* of its users give me valuable feedback about how to make the
>toolset better. If other users want to use the toolset for other
>purposes, I only ask that not hold me liable if it doesn't work as
>they expected, etc.
>
>The other project, however, involves using this toolset/notation to
>build a set of clinical applications for newborn intensive care. In
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[1]
>this case, I truly do want to be restrictive. If others derive
                    ^^[2]
>products from this project, I want the derived products to be open
>source as well. In saying this, I don't view myself as being hateful
>or vindictive or as fighting evil. I simply want to encourage
>individuals and companies who build on these applications to give
>their products back to the pediatric community. So, for the second
>project, I am strongly inclined toward GPL.
>
Your motivations would seem laudable, but when it comes to babies who are very
vulnerable to mistakes [1] I would hate to think of, e.g., an IV dosage
or flow rate accidentally computed with the wrong kind of division.

I would hope that you would concern yourself at least as much about using
restrictions [2] to ensure that well-meaning but inadequately tested
"contributions" don't get used by other well-meaning but perhaps not so
software-QA-issue-aware folks.

I would think also that you are skirting very close to a whole raft of laws
meant to protect those under medical care from deficient devices or procedures,
and some of those probably override attempts to avoid liability. IANAL, but
my guess is you might want to talk to one to get the real scoop.

I.e., there (I hope) must be more of a threshhold to pass before using
software in the pediatric community than googling and accepting the
NO WARRANTY conditions, unless it's for games in the waiting room or
other non-critical uses. But newborn intensive care?? ;-/

Regards,
Bengt Richter