Licensing

[Paul Boddie]

On 29 Mar, 20:24, DS <ds-python-l... at sidorof.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone
> will point me in the right direction.
>
> I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in
> python.  I am planning to use GPLas the license.  However, in my code,
> there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook.  I would like to
> use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that
> would do the same thing.

Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where
otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under
the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean
this licence:

http://www.python.org/psf/license/

It's generally not recommended to use this licence for anything other
than Python because it mentions the need to reproduce the Python
copyright statement in derived works, which would be nonsense for
anything which isn't the Python distribution. However, one can infer
that the copyright notice specific to the software concerned should be
reproduced, and this is what the original CWI licence says.

Of course, if a different licence is mentioned on the specific recipe
you're using, you have to observe the terms mentioned in that licence
instead.

> So, my options appear to be:
> 1.   Don't use it.
> 2.   Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right.
> 3.   Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source.
> 4.   Provide a separate licensing page for that function
>        along with the GPL for my code.
>
> What is the appropriate course of action here?  I'm thinking #3 is
> probably ok.  How do others deal with this in an honorable way?  In the
> book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless
> there is some massive use.

You just need to do what's necessary to satisfy the licence applied to
the code you're using. If that's the Python licence, I would imagine
that reproducing the copyright statement and licence details would be
sufficient, even if your own work is GPL-licensed.

What I've done when I've released work which incorporates other work
(itself available under a permissive licence) is to include the
copyright statements and the licence text for that other work, but
I've made it clear in the licensing information that the derived work
(my code incorporating the other code) is available under the specific
licence I've chosen, noting that the other work was made available
under a different licence.

So I suppose that #4 is the closest, but you should be able to assert
that the entire work is GPL-licensed unless the recipe isn't licensed
in a GPL-compatible way, which would open up a range of other issues
that you hopefully won't have to deal with. ;-)

Paul

P.S. This isn't anything close to legal advice, so please take other
opinions into account. ;-)