Python-2.0 was probably never actually used for Python release 2.0, but it's the version that was approved by OSI
Python-2.0.1 was added to the License List in #1549 as a version of the Python "license stack" which more closely aligns with the version actually used by Python
PSF-2.0 contains just the first section of the Python "license stack," and is used by others in the Python community separately from distributions of Python itself
This means that the text on the OSI site no longer matches the specified identifier on the License List; and the License List's designation of which Python- / PSF- licenses are OSI-approved is no longer in line with what OSI says.
I think there's a couple of options for addressing this:
OSI might correct their page back to use the Python-2.0 identifier
or, OSI might change the text on that page to be what SPDX calls PSF-2.0, and we can update the identifiers accordingly
@richardfontana @jlovejoy I'd welcome your thoughts on the above!
There are (at least) three different Python-related license IDs on the License List:
Many, many gory details about these different versions are available at https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1200, but the upshot is:
I'm mentioning all of this because it appears that OSI still has the text of Python-2.0 on its website at https://opensource.org/license/python-2-0/. However, at some point between May 2023 and now, they updated the corresponding SPDX identifier on the OSI site to be
PSF-2.0
instead ofPython-2.0
. (see the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20230526114956/https://opensource.org/license/python-2-0/ for where this previously saidPython-2.0
)This means that the text on the OSI site no longer matches the specified identifier on the License List; and the License List's designation of which Python- / PSF- licenses are OSI-approved is no longer in line with what OSI says.
I think there's a couple of options for addressing this:
Python-2.0
identifierPSF-2.0
, and we can update the identifiers accordingly@richardfontana @jlovejoy I'd welcome your thoughts on the above!
cc @OpenSourceOrg if you have feedback as well!