RetroSearch Browse

Sat Feb 12 03:28:43 CET 2005 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051539.html

At 02:09 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>Isn't the PSF somewhere in between?  I mean, in theory we are supposed to 
>>be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for 
>>CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
>
>That is not true, see
>
>http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
>
>We certainly don't have forms from all contributors, yet, but we
>are working on it.
>
>>So in some sense right now, Python depends largely on the implied promise 
>>of its contributors to license their contributions under the same terms 
>>as Python.  ISTM that if somebody's lawyer is worried about whether 
>>Python contains pseudo-public domain code, they should be downright 
>>horrified by the absence of a paper trail on the rest.  But IANAM (I Am 
>>Not A Marketer), either.  :)
>
>And indeed, they are horrified. Right now, we can tell them we are
>working on it - so I would like to see that any change that we make
>to improve the PSF's legal standing. Adding code which was put into
>the "public domain" makes it worse (atleast in the specific case -
>we are clearly allowed to do what we do with the current md5 code;
>for the newly-proposed code, it is not so clear, even if you think
>it is likely we would win in court).

Thanks for the clarifications.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051539.html below:

[Python-Dev] license issues with profiler.py and md5.h/md5c.c