This tracker and other Roundup instances lack OpenID login form available on the b.p.o  Merging it upstream to Roundup will do good for other Python projects using  this tracker (Jython, Mercurial, ...).

Would you like to work on extracting it into a patch that can be submitted upstream?  I doubt that Martin has the time; I'm just very grateful that he took the time to implement it for the main python tracker.

I can do this, but it is licensed under Academic Free License, version 3 
http://svn.python.org/projects/tracker/instances/python-dev/lib/openid2rp.py

So there is nothing I can do unless you can persuade Martin to exchange the license to MIT for some credits in Roundup project.

openid2rp is a separate package. It doesn't need to be incorporated into roundup.

Martin v. Löwis writes:
 > 
 > Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
 > 
 > openid2rp is a separate package. It doesn't need to be incorporated into roundup.

I don't see what the problem is, anyway.  The AFL is a permissive,
noncopyleft license, and sublicensable.  That specifically means that
roundup can apply any license it likes to the whole, subject to a one
time change in COPYING.  Something similar was already done for
PageTemplates (actually, that's more than is required for the AFL).

Furthermore, if openid2rp is distributed without change, and not
copied into roundup, absolutely no license obligations are created at
all.  See http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.pdf, p. 7.

Actually by "merging upstream" I meant OpenID support out of the box.

As for AFL, the biggest concern that nobody cares about it anymore, it is named redundant and there is still no consensus whatever it is compatible with GPL or not [1]. So I doubt anybody would want this stuff in their codebase.

It is also unclear under which license are current Roundup modifications.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Free_License

anatoly techtonik writes:

 > As for AFL, the biggest concern that nobody cares about it anymore,
 > it is named redundant and there is still no consensus whatever it
 > is compatible with GPL or not [1].

So what?  It's the license that Martin chose.

The real question is "will the Roundup Cabal accept the contribution
under those terms?"  Have you asked them?

The question is rather, are Martin's changes to Roundup itself (NOT openid2rp, which is a separate library) subject to the AFL as well?

There aren't really any changes yet (it's just an extension of roundup, not a patch to roundup). If a patch was developed based on that extension, I'd be willing to license it under whatever conditions are desired.

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Martin v. Löwis
<metatracker@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> wrote:
>
> There aren't really any changes yet (it's just an extension of roundup, not a patch to roundup). If a patch was developed based on that extension, I'd be willing to license it under whatever conditions are desired.

It is not that easy. For example, it came out that all Mercurial
extensions should be GPL. Unfortunately, I can not explain the
implication of merging AFL extension into MIT code base or
distribution.