[License-discuss] Python-2.0.1 and CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible

[Pamela Chestek]

I don't see a reason. The OSI generally only reacts to requests for 
license approval, it doesn't generally approve licenses without them 
being submitted. I'm assuming it hasn't be approved just because no one 
has asked for it before.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


On 3/6/2026 5:47 AM, Max Mehl wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As requested by Nick, I would like point to an ongoing discussion on 
> Python licenses, affecting both OSI's and SPDX’s realms, and request 
> OSI’s approval of two licenses.
>
> As you know, the licensing history of Python is quite complex, and the 
> current license consists of multiple other licenses representing the 
> long history and the different “ownerships” of the project (CWI, CNRI, 
> BeOpen, PSF). spdx/license-list-XML#2197 
> <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2197> and an email to 
> spdx-legal@ 
> <https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/107252308> describe a bunch 
> of intertwined problems around the identifiers of components of Python 
> licenses. Recently, OSI fixed some of those already, thanks!
>
> Now, I wonder about the status of the license SPDX describes as 
> Python-2.0.1 <https://spdx.org/licenses/Python-2.0.1.html>. IIRC, the 
> main difference between Python-2.0 
> <https://spdx.org/licenses/Python-2.0.html> and Python-2.0.1 is in the 
> CNRI part, making it GPL compatible (the “Virginia clause”). SPDX 
> lists this updated sub-part as CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible 
> <https://spdx.org/licenses/CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible.html>, a 
> successor of CNRI-Python <https://spdx.org/licenses/CNRI-Python.html>.
>
> Since Python 1.6.1 and 2.0.1, Python releases have been licensed under 
> Python-2.0.1 (and recently additionally 0BSD for its documentation), 
> while Python-2.0 has only been used for Python 1.6 and 2.0. So modern 
> CPython releases would probably be best described as being licensed 
> under "Python-2.0.1 AND 0BSD".
>
> But OSI only approved Python-2.0 as an Open Source license, as well as 
> the old CNRI-Python part. This is why I suggest OSI to approve 
> *Python-2.0.1* and *CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible* as Open Source 
> licenses, and mark Python-2.0 and CNRI-Python as superseded. Is there 
> any reason not to?
>
> Best,
> Max
>
> -- 
>
> *Max Mehl*
>
> Open Source / Supply Chain
>
> Enterprise-Team Chief Technology Office (CTO)
>
> DB Systel GmbH / Deutsche Bahn
>
>
> Schedule a meeting: cal.com/mxmehl <https://cal.com/mxmehl>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pflichtangaben anzeigen 
> <https://www.deutschebahn.com/pflichtangaben/20260305>
>
> Nähere Informationen zur Datenverarbeitung im DB-Konzern finden Sie 
> hier: https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/datenschutz
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260316/416b7ffd/attachment.htm>