Python license (2.3)

[Robert Kern]

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.

>>You can put *your* own terms on top for *your* own code 
>>as long as you can satisfy the requirements of the PSF license, which 
>>are very light.
>>
>>Read Larry Rosen's book:
>>
>>   http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
> 
> 
> I skimmed it and it doesn't seem to contain anything that helps me
> with the PSF. If it does could you at least point me to the right
> chapter.

Well besides reading to understand the mechanics of copyright and 
licensing, you should read Chapter 5: Academic Licenses, a class of open 
source licenses to which the PSF License belongs. The only thing 
particularly different between the PSF License and most other academic 
licenses (like BSD and MIT) is that the PSF License is more explicit.

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.

-- 
Robert Kern
rkern at ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
  Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
   -- Richard Harter