Suggesting a change in default license for

[Asheesh Laroia]

Hello, dear Python Packaging Guide mailing list people,

First, I wanted to say thanks for the very helpful Hitchhiker's Guide to
Python Packaging. I've been using it for my own projects and it's very
clear and helpful.

I noticed in the quickstart that the default suggested license is Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike. I have a few concerns about
this that I wanted to share, and wanted to suggest an alternative. (See:
http://guide.python-distribute.org/quickstart.html#describe-your-project )

(I also want to say that I know license discussions can get heated
quickly, and I'm trying to be as helpful as possible, and I know it's
especially hard to stay positive in email, so please try to give me the
benefit of the doubt and believe that I'm doing what I can to make the
project even better! I'm no stranger to license discussions, having worked
for Creative Commons and being a developer in Debian.)

Issues and background of the current default
--------------------------------------------

First, Creative Commons itself recommends against licensing software under
a CC license. (See "Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?"
at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions )

Second, even if we stick with the CC license, we're getting people started
on the wrong foot. The CC license requires that all re-distributors of a
CC licensed work include either the license URI (URL) or the full text of
the license. You can see that here: "You must include a copy of, or the
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the
Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform."
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode>

Third, on a more personal, less technical note, it's just kind of sad to
create a tiny little world of CC by-nc-sa software where re-use is only
permitted between those projects.

I took a look at the situation, and it seems that quickstart.txt
recommends the same license as what is used for the Hitchhiker's Guide to
Python Packaging itself. Since the guide is generally oriented around
packaging up code, I think we should recommend a code-oriented license.

So, then, which one?

(As background, I took a look at
http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq before
writing these suggestions.)

My suggestion
-------------

I would suggest a fairly simple, widely-used, liberal license as the
default suggestion. Given that PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq says
that the Apache License 2.0 is acceptable for software that is intended to
be contributed to the FSF, I would suggest that.

Attached, please find a patch that implements that suggestion.


Other things I'd be happy with
------------------------------

I'm inclined to say almost anything is better than using CC by-nc-sa for
software. If we want the guide to be as technical and non-normative as
possible, just say that the default license is "Proprietary: All rights
reserved", and make a note underneath the setup() call indicating that if
you want, you can release your code as open source by choosing a license,
and linking to the "Which open source license should I use?" FAQ entry on
PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq .

I'd also be happy with a default license suggestion of "GPLv3 or later, at
your option."

Further work
------------

I can prepare a patch that makes the license suggestion Apache License 2.0
as well as adding the extra text as suggested above with a link to the
"Which open source license should I use?" FAQ entry, if that is helpful.

Other suggestions welcome.

Let me know what y'all think. Thanks for the guide!

-- Asheesh.