Python license question

[Martitza]

Hi.  I work for a small company (actually in process of forming)
interested in embedding or extending python as part of our commercial
non-open-source product.  We have legal counsel, but are interested in
the spirit as well as the letter of the law.  Not much seems to have
been written about the python license since version 2, so pointers to
more recent discussions or contacts are appreciated.  If this is not
the right place to ask these questions, I would welcome better ideas.

We've read the license and "layman's language" at
http://www.python.org/psf/license/ and are need help reconciling the
two.

First Observation
The entire license -- such as produced by license() -- includes a lot
of information which appears to be historical or anecdotal, not the
kind of language our lawyers usually see in licensing agreements.
Lawyers claim they don't like "extra" language.  You be the judge.  :)

First Question
Is all of that information really a required part of the license we
pass on to our customers or is the "PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE
VERSION 2" portion sufficient?


Second Observation
Referring to sections 2 and 3 of the PSF License Version 2... Our
non-open-source product will be a derived work, either by extending or
embedding the python interpreter.  According to section 3, we will
briefly summarize these modifications to the python interpreter as
these relate to our product.  Good.

Section 2 says that we (as Licensee of the original python) have to
include without our modified python a copy of the license.  The License
explicitly states in section 1 that it is between the PSF and the end
user.  At the moment, we are the end user.  But when we sell our
software as a derived work, our customer becomes the end user.  So our
customers are entering into a direct agreement with PSF.  This
indemnifies the PSF (sections 4,5,6,7) -- also good.

But there is a side effect of section 2 that would seem to give our
customers many rights ("to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or
display publicly, prepare derivative works, distribute...") to the
derived work we created.

We would have a problem with our customers distributing our derivative
work or preparing derivative works of our derivative work.  We could of
course apply our own restrictive license to things which are truly
ours, but we cannot do this to the work derived from python because
that would conflict with section 2 of the python license.

Second Question
Can we we prevent our commercial customers from freely redistributing
or modifying our derived version of python?  The answer seems like "no"
from the License itself but "yes" from the layman's language.  Of
course, our lawyers only look at the license.

Thank you for your time.  Our goal is to understand and be good
corporate citizens.  We believe python would be a great benefit to our
customers, and we are looking for a viable business model that allows
that.

Martitza

-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Python license question

[Martitza]

Mr. Peters:

Thank you for so kindly taking the time to resolve my misunderstandings
and to elaborate on the intent of the PSF.

In particular, thank you for explaining in plain language how the
licenses stack.  I'm sure our counsel will figure out what a license
from a defunct BeOpen means and anything we do will be in compliance
with all of the license stack.

Best Regards,
Martitza  Mendez


Tim Peters wrote:
> [Martitza]
> |> Hi.  I work for a small company (actually in process of forming)
> > interested in embedding or extending python as part of our commercial
> > non-open-source product.  We have legal counsel, but are interested in
> > the spirit as well as the letter of the law.  Not much seems to have
> > been written about the python license since version 2, so pointers to
> > more recent discussions or contacts are appreciated.  If this is not
> > the right place to ask these questions, I would welcome better ideas.
> >
> > We've read the license and "layman's language" at
> > http://www.python.org/psf/license/ and are need help reconciling the
> > two.
>
> There's also the informal license FAQ:
>
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so can't give legal advice.  I can explain intent,
> speaking as a Director of the Python Software Foundation.
>
> > First Observation
> > The entire license -- such as produced by license() -- includes a lot
> > of information which appears to be historical or anecdotal, not the
> > kind of language our lawyers usually see in licensing agreements.
> > Lawyers claim they don't like "extra" language.  You be the judge.  :)
>
> Section A (HISTORY OF THE SOFTWARE) isn't really part of the license.
> But because the PSF doesn't have the right to /re/license the portions
> of Python copyright by CWI, CNRI, or BeOpen.com, the history given
> there can be helpful if anyone is inclined to spend (IMO) too much
> time worrying about the licenses.
>
> > First Question
> > Is all of that information really a required part of the license we
> > pass on to our customers or is the "PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION
> > LICENSE VERSION 2" portion sufficient?
>
> Section A is not required.  All of section B is required.  Parts of
> Python are copyrighted by, and licensed by, the four entities whose
> licenses appear in section B.
>
> > Second Observation
> > Referring to sections 2 and 3 of the PSF License Version 2... Our
> > non-open-source product will be a derived work, either by extending or
> > embedding the python interpreter.  According to section 3, we will
> > briefly summarize these modifications to the python interpreter as
> > these relate to our product.  Good.
>
> Indeed ;-)  Note that there are no specific requirements about detail,
> and this is really for your benefit:  the more clearly you identify
> the parts that are your original work, the easier it will be to prove
> it is in fact your work (should that become necessary).
>
> The NEWS file that comes with a Python distribution is the PSF's
> version of meeting this requirement (by the similar terms in the CNRI
> and BeOpen.com licenses, the PSF is also required to summarize the
> modifications the PSF makes!).
>
> > Section 2 says that we (as Licensee of the original python) have to
> > include without our modified python a copy of the license.  The License
> > explicitly states in section 1 that it is between the PSF and the end
> > user.
>
> The phrase "end user" appears nowhere in the license.  You must mean
> Licensee.  As a Licensee, you're free (heck, encouraged) to make
> derivative works, but you have no legal authority to put a /different/
> license on any part of the Python you started with.  In exactly the
> same way, the PSF has no legal authority to put a different license on
> the versions of Python the PSF started with.
>
> When you distribute your derived work, your "end users" have rights to
> use the PSF-copyrighted portion of your work by exactly the same means
> you have:  they also become Licensees of the PSF.  And of CNRI, and of
> BeOpen.com, and of CWI.
>
> The license you put on your derived work as a whole only controls the
> portions of your derived work original with you, and your derived work
> as a whole.  You can neither diminish nor increase the rights your end
> users have wrt any of the Python code you obtained from the PSF --
> that's not your work, you don't have and can't get copyright on it,
> and you and your end users have exactly the same rights with respect
> to it (as s