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

[Richard Fontana]

This looks really useful (for example, it shows that the original
discussion around the Python licenses was in 2011, which I didn't want
to attempt to look up).

Richard

On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 1:06 AM Moming Duan <duanmoming at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Seeing this thread (I've also noticed similar tracking concerns raised in other threads recently), a small pointer that may be useful here.
>
> The recent OSI newsletter already mentioned it, so I'll keep this short: I maintain LicenseAtlas, which includes a license review tracker built from the license-review and license-discuss archives. It covers ~190 submissions with timelines, resolution dates, and board vote records, so a submitter can check a license's review history before posting:
>
> https://morningd.github.io/license.atlas/tracker
>
>
> Searching it for "Python" surfaces the earlier Python-family reviews and how they were resolved. The tracker refreshes automatically within a few hours of new list activity, and uses AI assistance in a couple of places:
>
> - Status reconciliation: when OSI pages, board minutes, and the archives disagree on a license's status, the conflict is resolved against the cited evidence.
> - Message digests: every list email is condensed into a one-line point with a stance label (support / oppose / question), and the timeline can be filtered by stance.
> - Versioned license texts: submitted texts are extracted from the emails, grouped into version series, and diffable between versions.
>
>
> I hope this gives the community a more convenient way to follow and search the review process. Feedback and suggestions are always welcome.
>
>
> Best,
> Moming
>
> Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> 于2026年8月28日周五 01:16写道：
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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