Python-2.0 license should not include all the history of Python licensing

[pombredanne]

The Python-2.0 license is used in Python proper and in other projects. Yet the Python-2.0 text @ SPDX is really the whole Python.org license notice and history, making this is license text useless outside of the Python.org licensing.

[swinslow]

@pombredanne I'm in favor of this. Looking at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/src/Python-2.0.xml, is your suggestion that Python-2.0 should be just lines 14-65? With the remainder punted out into separate license entries (possibly Python-1.X, Python-1.Y variants)?

I do note that CNRI-Python already exists for one part of the older version "history" chunks. I haven't run a redline against the center part of what's currently in Python-2.0, but flipping between tabs it sure does look the same...

[swinslow]

That being said, a couple of downsides to making this change --

• the OSI definition of Python-2.0 includes the full "history" text -- see https://opensource.org/licenses/Python-2.0. (Perhaps, if we change, it should only be concurrent with OSI making a change so that they stay in sync?)

• For Python itself (the language implementation), is it under just the Python-2.0 portion of this? Or does the standard Python distribution contain code that is still under the earlier licenses? If we were to break them out into separate entries, it would be a shame if that meant that the license for Python became something like Python-2.0 AND Python-1.6b1 AND Python-1.2 AND...

[pombredanne]

@swinslow You are right: changing the current Python-2.0 text is likely a bad idea. Yet we need a way to handle projects that use strictly the text from

license-list-XML/src/Python-2.0.xml

Line 10 in 2a14810

<p>PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2</p>

to

license-list-XML/src/Python-2.0.xml

Line 65 in 2a14810

</list>

and are not Python (and therefore do not need to cargo the history of Python licensing)

One possibility, we could have new id --e.g. PSF-2.0-- that contains only this text and leave the Python one as is. As you pointed out it is not the first time that there is an id text contained in another text. This would offer the maximum flexibility with the minimum changes

[jlovejoy]

@pombredanne - are you suggesting that we have a new entry that is only the part lines 10-65? What is the justification of this - that is, are you finding this alone in the wild and if so, can you point to an example?
thanks!

[jlovejoy]

@pombredanne - can you clarify the resulting idea here?

btw, I should have mentioned that in long ago, ancient history SPDX license list, one of our early contributors did a TON of research on the Python license "stack", as we referred to it, in terms of trying to understand what was used for which version of Python. There was a chart I believe, which was somewhat dizzying. If I can find that, it might be a good thing to store on the wiki for posterity.

[rohieb]

@pombredanne - are you suggesting that we have a new entry that is only the part lines 10-65? What is the justification of this - that is, are you finding this alone in the wild and if so, can you point to an example?

I'm finding this part of the Python-2.0 license text alone in the wild, e.g. in scipy-sphinx-theme, so I would welcome this part as a single license.

[pombredanne]

@rohieb Thanks
@jlovejoy sorry for the late reply: the point is that non-PSF code that is under the Python license will not have the historical baggage that the PSF Python license has because these other historical licenses just do not apply.

[rohieb]

@jlovejoy wrote:

btw, I should have mentioned that in long ago, ancient history SPDX license list, one of our early contributors did a TON of research on the Python license "stack", as we referred to it, in terms of trying to understand what was used for which version of Python. There was a chart I believe, which was somewhat dizzying. If I can find that, it might be a good thing to store on the wiki for posterity.

The chart is even part of Python's LICENSE file :-) https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/LICENSE#L27

[rohieb]

@pombredanne wrote:

Yet we need a way to handle projects that use strictly the text from

license-list-XML/src/Python-2.0.xml

Line 10 in 2a14810

<p>PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2</p>

to

license-list-XML/src/Python-2.0.xml

Line 65 in 2a14810

</list>

and are not Python (and therefore do not need to cargo the history of Python licensing)

One possibility, we could have new id --e.g. PSF-2.0-- that contains only this text and leave the Python one as is.

I've done exactly that in PR #952 now, would be great if you could have a look whether that's what you want.

[swinslow]

I'm in favor of the approach @rohieb implemented in #952, by adding a new "PSF-2.0" entry that contains just the specific license text without the historical text. (I'll have a couple of minor comments on #952 itself)

@pombredanne @jlovejoy, does that work for you also? Any concerns or are you good with the proposal in #952?

[bradleeedmondson]

The approach in #952 makes sense to me.

[rohieb]

@swinslow:

(I'll have a couple of minor comments on #952 itself)

Do you still have? I don't see them on #952…

[swinslow]

Discussed on 2020-01-30 legal team call, OK to merge #952, will want to add listVersionAdded tag but can do that post-merge.

[rohieb]

@swinslow thanks for the cleanup! :)