Talk:Python Software Foundation License

Free Software or Open Source license?
I tend to the latter, because both http://www.python.org/psf/license/ and http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.2/license/ specifically refer to The Open Source Initiative: "The Open Source Initiative has certified the Python license as Open Source, and includes it on their list of open source licenses".

Of course, the Python Licence is also a Free Software one, but the semantics of "All Python releases are Open Source... Historically, most, but not all, Python releases have also been GPL-compatible" convinced me to make changes to text of the article and Categories. --xrgtn 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BSD family?
Which philosophy model would the license be under? I read through it, and it seems that only one version of Python included the sticky license agreement model like the GPL. So, does that mean it's a more BSD-ideal license, or does it contain some clause I'm missing? Nicholasink 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyleft?
Does anybody know whether the Python Software Foundation License is considered a copyleft license or not? I'm just curious - I read through it, but the agreement was a bit difficult to understand (it mentioned different versions with different restrictions, etc.) Nicholasink 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) [originally posted at Talk:Copyleft].

It is a booby trapped copyleft.
Quoting from License 2.4.2


 * 3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on
 * or incorporates Python 2.4 or any part thereof, and wants to make
 * the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then
 * Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python 2.4.

As U.S. copyright law is based on treating program source as text, a 'brief description' may well be construed as source code diffs!

No wonder the FSF is so happy with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.160.242 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Right, but the license still allows you modify the code in any way you want without making it open source. Nice. 71.110.212.116 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a copyright lawyer, but that sounds extremely dubious. How could a "brief summary" possibly be interpreted as the complete work? Feezo (Talk) 22:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)