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

Mon Aug 31 14:57:05 UTC 2026

Thanks for pointing to the OSI board decision approving Python-2.0.1 and subsequently CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible! I wasn’t aware of this decision until now. And thanks to everyone involved in this decision.

Side note: It would have been great to get a feedback as a reply to the review request. Also, I am eagerly awaiting the new entries on opensource.org/licenses. FWIW, I’ve also created a draft PR for the SPDX data: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/pull/3075

Now to Nico’s request: I see most of his wishes covered by the aforementioned board decision. As I understand, this decision was in his best interest, as well as in PSF’s. So, no need to revert or supersede something else.

But, as I understand Nico, he also wants  PSF-2.0<https://spdx.org/licenses/PSF-2.0.html> to be approved, as this is - like the CNRI portion - an essential part of the Python-2.0 and Python-2.0.1 license.

I personally would be fine with the request to approve PSF-2.0, and most likely the PSF itself would feel the same. I did not include PSF-2.0 in my original review requests as (1) it hasn’t been touched in the update of Python from 2.0 -> 2.0.1, (2) hasn’t been OSI approved before, unlike Python-2.0 and CNRI-Python, and (3) didn’t feel as urgent as fixing the approval status of Python-2.0.1 (and the portion that actually caused the update).

I’d be happy to assist with getting PSF-2.0 approved if OSI feels it would be useful to have all portions of an approved license approved.

Best,
Max

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law>
Date: Thursday, 27. August 2026 at 21:13
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Python licenses: Python-2.0.1, PSF-2.0, CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible

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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopensource.org%2Flicense%2Fcnri-python&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839436627%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vkvqQpotHOyuAQBHQs7wufBOticiU6sQCwpPSAE%2FCj0%3D&reserved=0<https://opensource.org/license/cnri-python>, and approved the
Python-2.0.1 as Legacy, Superseding the prior approved version,
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopensource.org%2Flicense%2FPython-2.0&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839464940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SVFN%2F39Cuo308LWeXihJ3Qy0jPzPEgNMcHyXIFL5VKk%3D&reserved=0<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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fpipermail%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org%2F2026-March%2F006060.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839485427%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xa2tAveKLJcTb6eq6U2j%2BXhP6umKtGEm5m2yt5l7L1o%3D&reserved=0<https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-March/006060.html>

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fpipermail%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org%2F2026-March%2F006061.html&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839504959%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ltLL5H4jXHD2W7vFq7lLzv%2BMBVNGJkJ5hlqumPjoHfU%3D&reserved=0<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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopensource.org%2Flicenses%2Freview-process&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839524871%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0u%2FdoX5hFSf7cYTao58mcC51EkPeqbjXSKKt5LNTuVM%3D&reserved=0<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
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chesteklegal.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839545020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Dr5ZPAAFc9DpuC4U8eSJuQ%2FLvOFh%2BFrzxIN0De6KJ0Y%3D&reserved=0<http://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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgist.github.com%2Fmxmehl%2Fd3e8694e30fc94cc6517529b5441ebc5%2Frevisions%3Fdiff%3Dsplit%26w&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839564123%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ddUphGX%2F8Ej9dW40ZodDIgzZGAybShVgPyqPV4ViLf4%3D&reserved=0<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
>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839583167%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yBCmQwlkCxTQbq%2Frx31kklmPCN1wBvIugpWqbOkK4zg%3D&reserved=0<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
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839602459%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r3OQuvZimlaxuzaJA%2BS28aE6mhPn2WHipVPL6GOswow%3D&reserved=0<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
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C02%7Cmax.mehl%40deutschebahn.com%7C84cadacadf9640abf49508df046f353d%7Ca1a72d9c49e64f6d9af65aafa1183bfd%7C0%7C0%7C639234547839621020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qKNX3yvnDnlhcWWmlwHaBfmJuCrLe%2BIRBcEiWEU9AlI%3D&reserved=0<http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org>

________________________________

Pflichtangaben anzeigen<https://www.deutschebahn.com/pflichtangaben/20260901>

Nähere Informationen zur Datenverarbeitung im DB-Konzern finden Sie hier: https://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/datenschutz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260831/38f89c54/attachment-0001.htm>