Licensing

[DS]

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone
will point me in the right direction.

I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in
python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code,
there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to
use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that
would do the same thing.

So, my options appear to be:
1. Don't use it.
2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right.
3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source.
4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
along with the GPL for my code.

What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is
probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the
book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless
there is some massive use.

Thanks

 

[Scott David Daniels]

I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in
python. I am planning to use GPL as the license. However, in my code,
there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook....
So, my options appear to be:
1. Don't use it.
2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right.
3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source.

I vote for this. If you got it of the web site, include a url. If you
went for the book, I'd prefer crediting both, but at least give enough
so the interested reader can get back to some version of "the original."

4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
along with the GPL for my code.
What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is
probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way?

As the author of several of those recipes, I definitely expect others
to use them. I'd hate to slow them up by requiring them to ask
permission, but would appreciate an acknowledgment.

-Scott David Daniels
(e-mail address removed)

 

[DS]

I vote for this. If you got it of the web site, include a url. If you
went for the book, I'd prefer crediting both, but at least give enough
so the interested reader can get back to some version of "the original."


As the author of several of those recipes, I definitely expect others
to use them. I'd hate to slow them up by requiring them to ask
permission, but would appreciate an acknowledgment.

-Scott David Daniels
(e-mail address removed)

Thanks for your perspective. I'll do both.

 

[Paul Boddie]

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm hoping someone
will point me in the right direction.

I'm getting ready to publish a first open-source project written in
python. I am planning to use GPLas the license. However, in my code,
there is a function that I like from Python Cookbook. I would like to
use it, although I could certainly write a less elegant version that
would do the same thing.

Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where
otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under
the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean
this licence:

http://www.python.org/psf/license/

It's generally not recommended to use this licence for anything other
than Python because it mentions the need to reproduce the Python
copyright statement in derived works, which would be nonsense for
anything which isn't the Python distribution. However, one can infer
that the copyright notice specific to the software concerned should be
reproduced, and this is what the original CWI licence says.

Of course, if a different licence is mentioned on the specific recipe
you're using, you have to observe the terms mentioned in that licence
instead.

So, my options appear to be:
1. Don't use it.
2. Use it with no comment -- that doesn't seem right.
3. Use it with remarks in the code that acknowledge the source.
4. Provide a separate licensing page for that function
along with the GPL for my code.

What is the appropriate course of action here? I'm thinking #3 is
probably ok. How do others deal with this in an honorable way? In the
book, it appears that they are saying they don't really care unless
there is some massive use.

You just need to do what's necessary to satisfy the licence applied to
the code you're using. If that's the Python licence, I would imagine
that reproducing the copyright statement and licence details would be
sufficient, even if your own work is GPL-licensed.

What I've done when I've released work which incorporates other work
(itself available under a permissive licence) is to include the
copyright statements and the licence text for that other work, but
I've made it clear in the licensing information that the derived work
(my code incorporating the other code) is available under the specific
licence I've chosen, noting that the other work was made available
under a different licence.

So I suppose that #4 is the closest, but you should be able to assert
that the entire work is GPL-licensed unless the recipe isn't licensed
in a GPL-compatible way, which would open up a range of other issues
that you hopefully won't have to deal with. ;-)

Paul

P.S. This isn't anything close to legal advice, so please take other
opinions into account. ;-)

 

[DS]

Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where
otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under
the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean
this licence:

http://www.python.org/psf/license/

It's generally not recommended to use this licence for anything other
than Python because it mentions the need to reproduce the Python
copyright statement in derived works, which would be nonsense for
anything which isn't the Python distribution. However, one can infer
that the copyright notice specific to the software concerned should be
reproduced, and this is what the original CWI licence says.

Of course, if a different licence is mentioned on the specific recipe
you're using, you have to observe the terms mentioned in that licence
instead.



You just need to do what's necessary to satisfy the licence applied to
the code you're using. If that's the Python licence, I would imagine
that reproducing the copyright statement and licence details would be
sufficient, even if your own work is GPL-licensed.

What I've done when I've released work which incorporates other work
(itself available under a permissive licence) is to include the
copyright statements and the licence text for that other work, but
I've made it clear in the licensing information that the derived work
(my code incorporating the other code) is available under the specific
licence I've chosen, noting that the other work was made available
under a different licence.

So I suppose that #4 is the closest, but you should be able to assert
that the entire work is GPL-licensed unless the recipe isn't licensed
in a GPL-compatible way, which would open up a range of other issues
that you hopefully won't have to deal with. ;-)

Paul

P.S. This isn't anything close to legal advice, so please take other
opinions into account. ;-)

Thanks for taking the time to write. I was also wondering about what
ramifications there are from mixing code from other licenses. So, I
guess if I was going to do it, I'd have a second license file for this
specific function with the license for it. I definitely don't want to
be in a situation where credit for someone else's work is not adequately
documented. It has happened to me, I know how I felt about it at the time.

At this point, I'm thinking that it is not worth messing with. What I
am going to do is write a separate function to accomplish the same
thing. It's only a few lines long. Of course, having seen the other
code I'm forever tainted...

There is something a little humorous about reading through the Python
Cookbook. You have submissions from all these incredibly smart people
with little gems of functions. But, if you actually use them, it's kind
of a hassle. On the other hand, I'm glad the book exists, and my memory
of the specific details of a function fade over time, but it has/does
give my a better understanding in general of how do things.

Thanks again.

 

[Duncan Booth]

Note that the Python Cookbook says this about licensing: "Except where
otherwise noted, recipes in the Python Cookbook are published under
the Python license." The link is incorrect, but I presume they mean
this licence:

http://www.python.org/psf/license/

I don't have a printed copy, but Google Books has it (not sure which
edition I found) and page xix says:

Given the nature of the cookbook, we wanted the recipes to be usable under
any circumstances where Python could be used. In other words, we wanted to
ensure completely unfettered use, in the same spirit as the Python license.
Unfortunately, the Python license cannot really be used to refer to
anything other than Python itself. As a compromise, we chose to use the
modified Berkeley license, which is considered the most liberal of
licenses. ... and then the license follows ...

So, if the recipe is in the printed cookbook the licensing is clear
(primarily you must retain the copyright notice).

 

[Paul Boddie]

I don't have a printed copy, but Google Books has it (not sure which
edition I found) and page xix says:

Given the nature of the cookbook, we wanted the recipes to be usable under
any circumstances where Python could be used. In other words, we wanted to
ensure completely unfettered use, in the same spirit as the Python license.
Unfortunately, the Python license cannot really be used to refer to
anything other than Python itself. As a compromise, we chose to use the
modified Berkeley license, which is considered the most liberal of
licenses. ... and then the license follows ...

So, if the recipe is in the printed cookbook the licensing is clear
(primarily you must retain the copyright notice).

The best advice I've found so far is the following:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

It spells out exactly what you have to do to satisfy the original
licence and to uphold your own licence choice. It's also written by
well-regarded legal people.

Paul

P.S. An older and more ambiguous conclusion on the topic can be found
here: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/4c8b3114c35df368