[License-review] Python licenses: Python-2.0.1, PSF-2.0, CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible

[Richard Fontana]

With I think similar motivations, Max Mehl submitted Python-2.0.1
earlier this year with the PSF's blessing:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/006060.html
This seems to be the latest discussion (May 2026):
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-May/006097.html

Max also submitted  CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/006062.html

See also: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/thread.html#22552

Richard

On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 7:32 AM Nico Rikken via License-review
<license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to request a review of all Python licenses, with SPDX IDs
> Python-2.0.1, PSF-2.0, CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible. Python-2.0 and CNRI-
> Python have already been reviewed and have status 'Non-Reusable'.
>
> It makes sense to review them as a set, because PSF-2.0 and CNRI-
> Python-GPL-Compatible are part of the larger license combination
> Python-2.0.1. So if Python-2.0.1 is considered an open source license,
> so will PSF-2.0 and CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible be.
>
>
> I felt the need to submit these license for review reading the
> discussions about the licensing of the NPM package argparse, which is
> ported from Python. The maintainer rightfully looks at which licenses
> are OSI-approved, and then it is concerning that the current license of
> Python Python-2.0.1 has not been reviewed, creating an unnecessary
> dilemma between choosing the license that better reflects reality or
> the license that is actually OSI-approved. By reviewing the other
> Python-variants, it becomes clear that all these licenses are actually
> open source licenses.
> In order to improve the situation around these licenses, I also
> requested the SPDX project to include the FSF review of these licenses:
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/3073
> I hope that after this review process we can tick the OSI-Approved
> boxes on these licenses too.
>
>
> For reference, the FSF considers Python-2.0.1 license a free software
> license. Thus by extension also considers licenses PSF-2.0 and CNRI-
> Python-GPL-Compatible free software licenses, as these separate
> licenses are included in the Python-2.0.1 license.
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Python
>
> In Fedora project the Python-2.0.1 and PSF-2.0 have been placed on the
> allowed license list. CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible hasn't been reviewed
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
>
> Debian also lists the Python-2.0.1 license as included in Debian and
> thus meeting the Debian Free Software Guidelines
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
>
> Given all the reviews by others, I don't consider it necessary to add a
> statement of my own how I see the license meet OSI requirements. To be
> honest, I was surprised that the license review process asks of
> submitters, of which no legal expertise can be expected, to
> 'Affirmatively state that the license complies with the Open Source
> Definition, including specifically affirming it meets OSD 3, 5, 6 and
> 9.' If I still have to do so, I'd happily add that in a reply.
>
>
> I couldn't find information about the categories/tags, as it isn't
> linked on the review process page and isn't explained on the license
> page. Through search I did find the old page
> https://opensource.org/licenses-old/category which does have
> explanations, so I'm going by these categories.
>
> Non-reusable: Python-2.0.1, CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible
> Redundant: PSF-2.0
>
> Python-2.0 and CNRI-Python are also listed as non-reusable.
> I consider PSF-2.0 a license to consider for compatibility in the
> Python ecosystem, but not something to recommend to new projects.
>
> Projects with these licenses:
> Python-2.0.1: Python
> CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible: Python (included in Python-2.0.1)
> PSF-2.0: Matplotlib
>
>
> In general I'd hope that OSI will over time review all licenses with an
> SPDX identifier for clarity.
>
> Thank you all for your work for the FOSS ecosystem!
>
> Looking forward to your review.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nico Rikken
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>