Re: Re: Re: "License: Perl" considered harmful [Was: "Python" license]
MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm not bothered if people put "under the same terms
> > > as otherthing" as we can do a reasonable substitution and I doubt
> > > anyone would have a problem with that, would they?
> > I think it's a problem. Did you read the document I wrote?
> Yes. Do I think it's confusing and exaggerates? Yes.
Part of the reason I posted it here was for feedback. So if you have any
concrete criticisms, I would be interested in hearing them. My goal is
to have a document to point upstreams to when I email them about their
> Isn't "under the
> same terms as Python" under all current and future PSF Python licences at
> the time of writing, similar to licensing under GPL version 2 or later?
The problem is, as I said, the terms of the Python license are very
specific to Python. Not in the way that, say, the LPPL is specific to
LaTeX, but that the terms of the license specifically identify the PSF,
and Python. It's like applying a BSD license and leaving "The Regents of
the University of California" in there when you're not the Regents. Or
is that okay? It doesn't seem to me like it should be.
Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org>