Python license (2.3)

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
>> 
>>>Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>>>Op 2005-04-13, Robert Kern schreef <rkern at ucsd.edu>:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, the license text and the copyright notice must be attached. It 
>>>>>doesn't mean that the PSF license is the operative one for the 
>>>>>derivative work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why attach a license that is not operative. That doesn't make sense
>>>>to me and will IMO just create confusion.
>>>
>>>Because it's not your code. The tiny obligation that you have to satisfy 
>>>is to say that some of the code comes from someone else and is available 
>>>under such-and-such a license. That's it. You can keep the code hidden, 
>>>you can charge whatever you like for it, but you have to attribute it 
>>>properly. Open source licenses don't get much less restrictive than this.
>> 
>> 
>> Well maybe this is a semantic problem. I wouldn't use the word "attach"
>> here.
>
> Fair enough. The license text is included *for reference*, not because 
> it is *the* license for the derived work. In fact, it *can't* be the 
> license of the derived work because you are not the PSF.
>
>> So what I seem obligated to do, is 1) Mentioning this came
>> from the python distribution and 2) explain where this distribution can
>> be attained and under what license.
>
> The minimum is:
>
> 1) Put the copyright notice in.
> 2) Reference a copy of the PSF License. (Practically speaking, a URL 
> will probably do.)
> 3) List the modifications you made.
> 4) Put your copyright notice in and whatever terms you want to apply.
>
>>>Of course, IANAL and TINLA, so if you want real legal advice instead of 
>>>advice from random newsgroup bums like myself, you should talk to a lawyer.
>> 
>> 
>> Well if it comes so far I have to consult a lawyer I'd rather not publish
>> it in the first place.
>
> Then take the (free) advice that you asked for. 

I'll do that and I appreciate your time in giving it.

> And please do read Rosen's book.

I started already.

>> The only reason I'm concerned is that this is to be part of a tutorial
>> and I prefer not to burden those who read the tutoral with any kind of
>> license. As far as I'm concerned people reading the tutorial can use
>> any code provided with it in any way they see fit.
>
> You can't *quite* go that far if you are deriving code from Python, but 
> it's about as close as you can get. You still have those light 
> restrictions about attribution and notification of changes.

I'm not sure I follow. As far as I understand, I can license the result
however I see fit, as long as I go by the conditions for using the
original code. So it seems I can use a license so that the readers
of the tutorial don't have to be concerned in how they use the code.

>> I see this as my contribution to the communities who has provided me
>> with all kinds of things that are usefull to me. I'm willing to put
>> time into this, but if I have to spend money because it is impossible
>> otherwise to find out how to contribute legally, that is a hurdle
>> I'm reluctant to take.
>
> You could take a look at what other people are doing. Most of us here 
> are writing and releasing software derived from Python, legally so and 
> without complication.

I would do that if I were just writing code I thought others could
find usefull. I then would feel no problem "burdening" those users
with the same kind of license I found in the product I took some
code from. But I also think that readers of documentation should
be free to use any code included in any way they see fit.

-- 
Antoon Pardon