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>:
>
>>>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. 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.

>>>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.

Well if it comes so far I have to consult a lawyer I'd rather not publish
it in the first place.

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.

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.

-- 
Antoon Pardon