gh-126022: make license.rst consistent with LICENSE #128516
Conversation
| sponsoring member of the PSF. | ||
|
|
||
| All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org/ for the Open | ||
| All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org for the Open |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org for the Open | |
| All Python releases are Open Source (see https://opensource.org/osd/ for the Open |
Maybe linking the page directly would be a good idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these suggestions make sense but they would make license.rst deviate from LICENSE again. @gvanrossum do you have any advice here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would strongly vote for keeping the exact text of LICENSE here, no matter how strong your urge to improve upon the language or the URLs. (With the exception of dead URLs, where we can substitute archive.org URLs if they exist.)
Ideally even the line breaks are in the same place -- that way you should be able to diff the two files and get a sense of any accidental deviations (ignoring markup and leading/trailing stuff).
My goal is that in the future changes to LICENSE are always matched with 100% equivalent changes to Doc/license.rst.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for the feedback @gvanrossum-ms . Please let us know if you are ok with the original pull request (without the suggestions) which tries to match the exact text of LICENSE as closely as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Sorry, I accidentally posted using my alter ego as Microsoft employee. :-)
Your changes are improvements, but don't completely make license.rst the same as LICENSE. Using diff -u LICENSE Doc/license.rst I found at least one other difference: in one place it has "PSF License Agreement" where LICENSE has "PSF License Version 2". Check for yourself to see if there are other significant differences. There are also differences in the top-level heading ("HISTORY OF THE SOFTWARE" vs. "History and License") -- though it's debatable if that could be intentional. @hugovk might have an opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's a visual diff:
Headings
LICENSE begins "A. HISTORY OF THE SOFTWARE", license.rst begins "History and License" but then has a "History of the software" subheading, so that's okay.
Other changes (ignoring rewraps)
LICENSE has "which became Zope Corporation" and "was a sponsoring member", which matches the changes here to license.rst. Also good.
Rewraps and trailing slash in URLs: we could make license.rst match LICENSE, just so that the diffs are as close as possible, but I'm not too bothered.
1.6.1 in the table
There's a notable difference in the table:
LICENSE says 1.6.1 is GPL-compatible, with an extra footnote. This was added in 2002:
And license.rst and the the docs were imported to this repo in 2007, but still saying 1.6.1 was not GPL-compatible:
116aa62#diff-431512c443051474cee831c669b5be81ebff617ca22a8aacea8a880dc5a0c008R45
So we should probably add this note to the rst as well.
PSF License Version 2
LICENSE changed in 2004 from being a licence for a specific Python version (2.4 at the time) to being Version 2:
This commit also explains there were no other changes to the licence.
When license.rst was imported with the docs in 2007, it still referred to the Python version: the |release| part is substituted for the actual version in each release. For example, https://docs.python.org/3/license.html has lots of mentions of 3.13.1.
So I think we should also update license.rst to refer to Version 2.
following on @gvanrossum 's advice I made license.rst consistent with LICENSE file.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--128516.org.readthedocs.build/