[SciPy-dev] Official scikits licensing

[Alexander Schmolck]

Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> writes:

> Alexander Schmolck wrote:
>> Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> This is the official word on scikits licensing: 
>> 
>> OK, I think this bit should just go verbatim on the scikits wiki:
>> 
>>> scikits packages are free to choose their own open source license. The
>>> license should be officially OSI approved. We will allow packages to contain
>>> code with licenses that, in our judgment, comply with the Open Source
>>> Definition but have not gone through the approval process. This is to allow
>>> us to adopt old code with permissive licenses. The package itself, though,
>>> should use a well-known OSI-approved license.
>> 
>> I think a recommendation for packages whose authors don't have any strong
>> preferences or that do not have other license constraints would be good to
>> give (BSD? Anything else that's just as good?), because this will reduce
>> unintended license incompatibilities between packages (not all OSI licenses
>> are compatible, obviously).
>
> """
> The recommended license for scikits projects is the (new) BSD license.
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
> """

Thanks -- I have updated

<http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/scikits/wiki/WikiStart> accordingly.

OK, as far as I'm concerned the scikits wiki page is almost usable now and are
the last 2 remaining vital pieces of information that are missing  are:

1. Homepage/Download urls
   
   I assume the .eggs should end up on cheeseshop and the project homepage
   will just be the ../scikits/wiki/<PROJECT-NAME>? E.g mlabwrap's setup would
   include:

      setup(...
        url="http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/scikits/wiki/mlabwrap",
        download_url="http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/mlabwrap/"
      ...)

2. Trac:
   
   How should individual scikits use the common trac? Does every scikit become
   a component? If so, whom does one have to bug to get the component created?
   
Also, provided the rest looks OK to you, I'll remove the "WARNING THIS
INFORMATION IS NOT RELIABLE YET" once these two points are addressed.

cheers,

'as