Missing license

[matthchr]

On SourceForge, it seems that pywin32 was licensed under the Python Software Foundation license.

Has the license changed from SourceForge, or is it still PSF? If it is indeed still PSF, can we add a LICENSE at the root of the repo similar to the one Python itself has?

pywin32 is not licensed under the PSF. It's licensed under the LICENSE files as applicable.

Go here and type "license":

https://github.com/mhammond/pywin32/find/master

[matthchr]

Oh - good to know. I got confused because of this on sourceforge:

A small nitpick/suggestion might be to put a note in the root readme or add a root LICENSE that mentions what you just said.

You can close this issue though (I'll leave it open on the off chance you think the above suggestion is a good idea)

Yes, it says PSF but it isn't correct.

[4rrak1s]

I know that this issue has already been addressed by ghost above, but could we get a more ”official” answer regarding the topic? It is a bit confusing how both https://pypi.org/project/pywin32/ and https://sourceforge.net/projects/pywin32/ list the License of the package as being Python Software Foundation License. Is pywin32 one of those packages that doesn't really have a main license and each module is falls under a different license (according to the License.txt in each of the module folders)?

[mhammond]

The license files in the source tree are the source of truth. These all predate the PSF license existing. My vague intention is to re-license this under the PSF license but that's probably a more formal process than I'm going to find the time for (and me just declaring the PSF license as a fact isn't going to keep lawyers happy, although keeping lawyers happy isn't a motivation!).

No one is going to come after anyone for treating this code as though it is PSF licensed.

[NN---]

It would be very convenient to have LICENSE file and save people time to search through issues.
Or at least put a note in README, so it will be visible for everyone.

[4rrak1s]

^ +1 A good idea would be just to keep the one LICENSE file in the root folder and add the other licenses in the header of every other file they apply to, accordingly. Or, you could just create a README file describing which license applies to which file and list all of the licenses in the root LICENSE file.

[thopiekar]

A 👍 also from my side. It is then clearly visible, when placing pywin32 into another project to which licence it belongs to.

[edumco]

Still confusing about license. Do you got it on a final license we can use safely like MIT or so?

[mhammond]

There are license files in the repo. I'm sorry it's confusing that there are multiple, but there's no confusion about what the license situation actually is.

[joshtombs]

+1
Any chance that a top-level license can be added that applies to the whole repository? Understood that there are multiple license files in the repository, but there are multiple directories (including source code in the top level) that do not clearly state which license applies to the whole project. This makes the project technically unusable (unlicensed) by those following licensing restrictions to a tee.

Additionally, a statement could be made in the README that states which license terms apply to all of the files.

[tellarin]

Unfortunately, the whole license issue remains a problem for the wider adoption of pywin32.

To the best of my knowledge going through the repo, the different modules/dependencies have different license terms:

• pywin32/win32/License.txt: BSD w/ attribution
• pywin32/com/License.txt: BSD w/ attribution
• pywin32/adodbapi/license.txt: LGPL
• pywin32/SWIG/: no local license, upstream GPLv3
• pywin32/Pythonwin/License.txt: BSD w/ attribution

So, in order to fulfill all, the license for the overall repo would have to be GPLv3.

However, pywin32/isapi has no defined license, so by default is would be considered not open.

Could we at least have a definition on the isapi code license?

Moreover, the package in PyPI claims to be under the PSF license, but that's incorrect due to the GPLv3 and undefined pieces used.

PS: Tagging the other license-related items for ease of access to the discussion - #1681, #1744, #1728.