Naming of the Python vs PSF licenses.

Karl Fogel kfogel at
Mon Jun 6 21:33:07 UTC 2011

Jilayne Lovejoy <jilayne.lovejoy at> writes:
>Re: Naming of the Python vs PSF licenses.
>Okay, so just to make sure I have this precisely correct, a few
>1 are there links to these two licenses listed below, so I can ensure
>  I have the correct text for each one (my understanding is the
>  "Python License 2.0" is this:
>, correct?) 
>2 will these licenses and title also be reflected  on the OSI website
>  (so that we are both consistent in naming, which I think is how this
>  came up to begin with) 

Yes.  If the PSF agrees that the Python-2.0 license's full name is
"Python License 2.0", the OSI will update accordingly.  We'd *love* to
stay in sync on this :-).

The license in question is exactly the one at the URL you mention above;
it's also at

What may be confusing is that in the multi-section Python-2.0 license,
the first *section* is entitled:


Since that's the first title-like thing people see, that name gets used
to cover the entire multi-part license, when it should really just refer
to the first section, and the overall license should have its own title
(which we are proposing by "Python License 2.0").

Well, heck:

I've just gone and updated the OSI site now to reflect this.  If anyone
feels this was premature, please let me know.

>3 What about CNRI LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PYTHON 1.6.1 referenced in an
>  earlier email?  I think I still needed to add that to that one to
>  the list and, if so, does this correspond to this:

Yes, that's right.  Once there is an SPDX name for this license, we will
update the OSI list to include that name in the CNRI license's canonical
URL (though the old URL will continue to work).

We're now tracking all OSI licensing issues in this Redmine tracker:

They're listed next to the "Support" label for now (that may change as
we configure Redmine more).  I just filed this issue...

...about adding some more explanatory text about all this on the license
pages themselves, but that shouldn't be a bottleneck for you.


>On 5/31/11 5:50 PM, "Lindberg, Van" <Van.Lindberg at>
>      Hi Karl,
>     Karl Fogel wrote:
>        In summary, I'm proposing this:
>          * "Python License 2.0" (Python-2.0)
>            The multi-part, legacy-ridden license covering Python
>        itself.
>          * "Python Software Foundation License 2.1" (PSF-2.1)
>            Clean, simple PSF license applicable to any software
>        (though most
>            often used by the Python community for software written in
>        Python).
>        And the issue right now is that the thing that SPDX is calling
>        the
>        "Python Software Foundation License" is really Python-2.0, not
>        PSF-2.1.
>    This sounds fine.
>     ____________________________
>    Van Lindberg
>     Haynes and Boone, LLP
>     van.lindberg at
>     972.739.8638
>    CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
>    imposed by 
>    U.S. Treasury Regulations, Haynes and Boone, LLP informs you that
>    any 
>    U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
>    attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
>    used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal 
>    Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>    another 
>    party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission is
>    confidential, 
>    may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the
>    intended 
>    recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
>    immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.
>Jilayne Lovejoy |  Corporate Counsel
>jlovejoy at
>720 240 4545  |  phone
>720 240 4556  |  fax
>1 888 OpenLogic  |  toll free
>OpenLogic, Inc.
>10910 W 120th Ave, Suite 450
>Broomfield, Colorado 80021

More information about the License-discuss mailing list