Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote: > >>I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. > > Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of > Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something > like this in the code: > > Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano. > Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself. > See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and > http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.
Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license (even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides Python itself. http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq Note that the Python license is not even appropriate for third party code that's intended to be contributed to the Python standard library or core! If you want a "like Python" license, try the MIT or "new-BSD" license instead: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
