Re: License (was: Re: TODO until python-ldap 2.0.0 final release)

[David L. <dav...@it...>]

hmm. for PSF licencing, I think we will have to

=091) check with PSF - they may want us to sign a 'contributor
=09   agreement', a la Zope, to indemnify them against IP/ownership etc
=09   <http://www.python.org/psf/psf-contributor-agreement.html>

=092) assign copyright of all files to the PSF, ie add to each file:
=09  "Copyright (c) 2002 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved"

if you're going to give away ownership like that, then why not just go publ=
ic
domain? its the most 'open' of open source, imho.

I'm happy either way, since I gave up copyright in all of my contributed
files. As, long as you leave the notice/warning message in there somewhere.

note also that previous file versions (extracted from cvs) would remain und=
er
their old licencing/copyright (if any).. which is normal, and desirable.

d

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Michael Str=F6der typed thusly:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> > that looks good.
> >
> > now, all of these licenses mention that they are between the end user
> > and some tangible entity, like the python software foundation in case o=
f
> > the python license. what or who would that entity be for python-ldap? i
> > have a feeling there must be some "licensor" explicitly named to make
> > this beast enforceable at all.
>
> Yes.
>
> How about asking Guido@Zope on how to grant the "licensor" role to
> the PSF? http://www.python.org/psf/mission.html sounds much like
> that. Maybe there's a separate PSF license available we can refer to?
>
> David?
>
> Ciao, Michael.

--=20
David Leonard                           Dav...@it...
School of Inf. Tech. and Elec. Engg _   Ph:+61 404 844 850
The University of Queensland       |+|  http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~leonard/
QLD 4072  AUSTRALIA               ~` '~