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

[McCoy Smith]

Max:

If you think the newer version of the Python license ought to be 
approved by the OSI, someone needs to submit it through the license 
approval process, described here: 
https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process

Given that it sounds like 2.0.1 is now being used by Python, and 2.0 is 
only a legacy of older versions, I'd suggest that if submitted, at the 
same time 2.0 be "Voluntarily Retired" as have many other licenses that 
have been superceded by newer versions (see the list here: 
https://opensource.org/licenses?categories=superseded%2Cvoluntarily-retired); 
if it is not, 2.0 will likely be tagged (if 2.0.1 is approved) as 
superseded, like these licenses: 
https://opensource.org/licenses?categories=superseded Same comment for 
the newer CNRI license versus the old one.

I would suggest that someone from the Python community (if you aren't 
one already) do the submission, if that result is indeed desired. The 
review process requirements are in the link above.

*This is no commentary on the approvability of the 2.0.1. or new CNRI 
license, which I haven't read, but just a general comment on how the 
result you want might be accomplished.

McCoy Smith

On 3/16/2026 5:46 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260317/c94a0422/attachment.htm>