Thomas Wouters writes: > Is there any reason not to include them in the standard Python licence, the > same as the documentation ? It is documentation, after all, even if it's In the IETF world, the Internet Society gets copyright of everything, so there's precedent for this. I don't think the author-based model isn't exactly what we're looking for. For specifications, there's usually an editor (the shephard, not the PEP Editor, in this case) who's name goes on there, with the copyright belonging to the organization under whose auspices the specification was written. For the W3C, the editors are named, and the copyright belongs to MIT, Inria, and Keio U. For us, the shephard is the editor and copyright should belong to the Python community (somehow; IANAL, so don't ask me how to do *that*). -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4