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

[McCoy Smith]

All:
At the June board meeting, the Board follows the recommendation of the 
License Committee and approved the CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible as Legacy, 
Superseding the prior approved version, 
https://opensource.org/license/cnri-python, and approved the 
Python-2.0.1 as Legacy, Superseding the prior approved version, 
https://opensource.org/license/Python-2.0.

Note that both prior licenses were approved as Superceded by the 
recently approved licenses as that was what was requested in Max's 
requests:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/006060.html

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/006061.html

The License List pages haven't been updated to reflect this but will 
shortly.

So I don't think anything needs to be submitted or done yet although the 
statement "Important that PSF-2.0 will also be included in the review as 
it is used stand-alone and is also part of Python-2.0.1" is inconsistent 
with the proposal to approve Python-2.0.1 and supersede Python-2.0 aka 
PSF-2.0. So perhaps some clarity on that point would be helpful before 
we post the new licenses and update the category on the old ones.

On 8/27/2026 10:14 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I hate to be a pill about it, but we need a way to manage the 
> requests. Can you send a separate email for each license you would 
> like considered? There is also a page describing the information the 
> OSI likes to have for each submission, although in this case I expect 
> they can be lax. https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process But a 
> separate email for each license will be helpful, particularly since it 
> looks like some of the licenses you wanted considered have already 
> been reviewed.
>
> 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 8/21/2026 10:35 PM, Nico Rikken via License-review wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Good to see a familiar faces here.
>>
>> I didn't look back far enough to notice the submissions by Max. Great
>> that Max beat me to it and it already got started. And with support of
>> Python!
>>
>> Important that PSF-2.0 will also be included in the review as it is
>> used stand-alone and is also part of Python-2.0.1.
>>
>> I see how the nesting of licenses and the subtle differences can be
>> confusing. I did some diffing myself to verify the statement I made in
>> my initial email. I think the diff link by Max is well-made:
>> https://gist.github.com/mxmehl/d3e8694e30fc94cc6517529b5441ebc5/revisions?diff=split&w 
>>
>>
>> To me the subtle differences with previously approved licenses only
>> come down to choice of law, which only improved to be more generic. For
>> FSF it was the reason to consider these licenses not only free, but
>> also GPL-compatible. So it should be obvious they comply with Open
>> Source definition. I do of course recognize that it needs a formal
>> review.
>>
>> Anything Max and I can do to move this forward?
>>
>> 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 
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
>