Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Python Software Foundation License

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) is a permissive license developed and maintained by the (PSF), granting users broad rights to the programming language's implementation, documentation, and associated code under terms that permit reproduction, distribution, modification, and commercial use without requiring derivative works to be open-sourced. This license reflects Python's evolution from early releases under varied sponsorships—beginning with the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) in the 1990s, followed by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) and BeOpen.com—culminating in the 's formation in 2001 as a non-profit entity to centralize ownership of Python's and standardize its licensing. Version 2.0, approved by the on October 22, 2004, forms the core of the current "license stack," which layers PSFL atop historical permissions while incorporating third-party components under compatible licenses like or BSD, ensuring the overall distribution remains freely usable worldwide on an "" basis with no warranties or liability for the . Key characteristics include mandatory retention of the 's in distributions, allowance for embedding in proprietary applications, and explicit compatibility with both GPL and non-copyleft ecosystems, which has facilitated 's widespread adoption in diverse fields from to scientific computing without imposing reciprocal open-sourcing obligations. Unlike more restrictive licenses, the PSFL prioritizes simplicity and flexibility, avoiding grants in its text to align with contributor agreements that separately address such rights, though it has prompted discussions on export compliance and modifications for specialized uses like embedded systems.

History

Early Development and Pre-PSF Licenses

Python was created by at the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) in the , with development commencing in December 1989 and the initial public release, version 0.9.0, occurring in February 1991. The early distributions operated under the CWI Permissions Statement, a concise permissive notice that authorized users to freely use, copy, modify, and distribute the software for any purpose, subject only to an as-is disclaimer of warranties. This informal arrangement reflected the academic origins, prioritizing ease of dissemination over restrictive terms to foster experimentation and adoption among researchers. In 1995, van Rossum relocated to the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) in , where development persisted until 2000, culminating in releases like 1.6 in September 1999. The CNRI License Agreement, formalized for 1.6.1, expanded on prior permissions by explicitly granting a non-exclusive, royalty-free to any patents held by CNRI related to the software, alongside to reproduce, modify, and distribute derivatives. This addition addressed intellectual property clarity amid institutional development, though the 's choice-of-law provision rendered it incompatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) starting from 1.6. The permissive structure, eschewing requirements, enabled integration into systems, which empirical uptake patterns suggest aided contributor attraction by avoiding mandatory source disclosure obligations. By May 2000, van Rossum and the core development team transitioned to BeOpen.com, establishing BeOpen PythonLabs to accelerate progress through commercial funding mechanisms. 2.0, released on October 16, 2000, adopted the BeOpen , maintaining a similar royalty-free grant for reproduction, modification, and distribution while disclaiming liabilities. This brief commercial alignment underscored potential instabilities in for-profit oversight of communal software, as the entity's volatility risked divergent proprietary adaptations absent robust safeguards, thereby highlighting the limitations of transient licensing custodianship in sustaining . The sequence of permissive licenses across these phases empirically supported broad dissemination without enforcement of reciprocal , distinguishing from copyleft alternatives like the GPL and facilitating its expansion beyond academic confines.

Formation of the PSF and PSFL Adoption

The Python Software Foundation (PSF) was incorporated on February 20, 2001, in Delaware as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation to provide independent stewardship for the Python programming language, shielding its development from commercial volatility. This move directly addressed the fallout from BeOpen.com's collapse earlier that year amid the dot-com bust, after the company had released Python 2.0 in October 2000 but failed to sustain operations, prompting community calls for a neutral entity to hold Python's intellectual property and ensure ongoing open-source governance. The PSF promptly introduced the Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), a BSD-style permissive crafted to consolidate and supersede the patchwork of prior licenses from entities like the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) and BeOpen, incorporating their terms via a "license stack" to preserve for all historical contributions without requiring relicensing. This structure allowed seamless integration of legacy code while streamlining permissions for reproduction, modification, and distribution, avoiding the endorsement restrictions and U.S. export controls that complicated earlier agreements. PSFL adoption coincided with 2.1's release on April 17, 2001, the first under auspices, unifying the project's licensing under permissive terms that facilitated broader contributions and commercial use without obligations. This shift marked 's stabilization as a community-led resource, with the PSFL's design—later refined in —prioritizing contributor simplicity and OSI approval for .

Version 2.0 and Subsequent Stability

The Software Foundation License version 2.0 was finalized in 2001 upon the PSF's assumption of stewardship over , incorporating explicit language to ensure compatibility with General Public License version 2 or later, thereby enabling seamless interoperability with GPL-licensed software. This addressed prior compatibility concerns from transitional licenses used in releases like Python 2.0, allowing derivative works under PSFL to be combined with GPL components without restriction. The license's text, granting broad permissions for reproduction, modification, and distribution while requiring copyright notice retention, was approved by the as a permissive open source license. Since its adoption, PSFL version 2.0 has undergone no substantive revisions, even amid transformative events such as the 3.0 release on December 3, 2008, which introduced backward-incompatible changes to the language core, and the explosion of the Python ecosystem into domains like and web development, with over 500,000 packages on PyPI by 2025. The has maintained the license's core provisions unchanged through Python's evolution to version 3.14 in 2025, relying instead on dual-licensing select documentation elements (e.g., examples under PSFL v2.0 and Zero-Clause BSD starting with 3.8.6) without altering the primary license. In 2025, PSF governance updates, including bylaws amendments effective July 23 to align with data privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA, focused solely on organizational compliance and membership processes, leaving the PSFL text intact. This enduring stability empirically validates the license's design: its minimal obligations and absence of enforcement reduce legal friction, fostering widespread adoption without the iterative controversies—such as those prompting the GPL's update to version 3 in June to counter lock-ins—that afflict more restrictive schemes. Python's growth to a core tool in industries handling trillions in economic value underscores the causal efficacy of this low-intervention approach over revision-prone alternatives.

Core Provisions

Granted Permissions

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) Version 2 grants licensees a nonexclusive, , worldwide license to reproduce, analyze, test, perform, and/or display publicly the software; to prepare derivative works; and to distribute executable or versions of or derivative works to third parties. This encompasses unrestricted rights to copy the software in source or binary form, modify its code for custom implementations, and redistribute it—whether in original or altered states—for any purpose, including integration into proprietary systems. These permissions extend to commercial exploitation without royalties or fees beyond retaining required copyright notices, enabling developers to embed in closed-source enterprise applications, such as financial trading platforms or embedded systems, while applying their own licensing terms to the overall product. Unlike copyleft licenses, the PSFL imposes no obligation to release modifications or derivatives under the same terms, preserving flexibility for empirical testing and enhancements. Sublicensing rights are inherent in the distribution permissions, allowing licensees to further sublicenses to end-users or partners, which facilitates scalable adoption in commercial ecosystems where components are bundled without mandating access to underlying . Additionally, the license stack incorporates historical s from predecessors like the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), which held patents on core technologies as of 1.6.1 in 2000, effectively providing use rights that mitigate infringement risks for implementations faithful to the original design.

Required Obligations

Licensees distributing Python software or derivative works must retain the original ("Copyright © 2001, ; All Rights Reserved") and the full text of the PSF License Agreement within the distributed materials. This attribution requirement ensures that the provenance of the software remains traceable without imposing additional substantive restrictions on modification or redistribution. For derivative works made available to third parties, licensees are obligated to include a concise summary of the principal changes made, though this does not extend to internal or private uses. The license explicitly prohibits the use of the Python Software Foundation's name, trademarks, or the "Python" name in any endorsement, promotion, or advertising of derivative products without prior written permission from the . This clause protects the PSF's interests while allowing broad permissive use of the code itself. In cases involving code from earlier Python versions under prior licenses, such as the CNRI License for 1.6.1, distributors must include the applicable historical licensing terms for affected portions to maintain compliance, without retroactively altering the terms for newer PSFL-covered code. These obligations collectively form lightweight administrative requirements that prioritize software reuse and innovation over reciprocal sharing mandates.

Liability and Warranty Disclaimers

The Python Software Foundation License Version 2 (PSFL) provides the software on an basis, explicitly disclaiming all representations or warranties, whether express or implied. This includes no assurances regarding the software's merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose, or non-infringement of third-party rights, reflecting a deliberate allocation of risk to licensees in volunteer-contributed projects where of defects or misuse cannot be preemptively guaranteed. Under Section 5 of the PSFL, the () limits its liability by stating it shall not be responsible for any incidental, special, or arising from the modification, distribution, or use of or its derivatives, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. This provision aligns with causal principles in open-source distribution, where contributors avoid exposure to unpredictable user harms, prioritizing broad accessibility over indemnification in a model proven effective for sustaining community-driven development without financial backing for litigation defense. These disclaimers underscore the PSFL's structure for truth-seeking software , where users assume responsibility for validation and application, distinct from more prescriptive that might impose sharing obligations but retain similar risk-shifting mechanisms. By forgoing warranties, the facilitates empirical testing and adaptation by end-users, supported by the historical stability of Python's since Version 2's adoption.

Similarities and Differences with BSD Licenses

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) version 2.0 and the BSD 3-Clause License are both classified as permissive open-source licenses, granting recipients broad rights to use, reproduce, modify, and distribute the software in source or binary forms, including within proprietary products, without imposing copyleft requirements. Both require the preservation of the original copyright notice, the full license text, and any accompanying disclaimers in all copies or substantial portions thereof. Additionally, they include identical warranty disclaimers, stating that the software is provided "as is" without express or implied warranties, and limit liability for damages to the fullest extent permitted by law.
AspectPSFL Version 2.0BSD 3-Clause License
StructureFormal license agreement between PSF and licensee, with enumerated sections on permissions, conditions, and indemnity.Concise copyright notice with redistribution conditions and disclaimers.
Endorsement ProhibitionExplicitly bars use of "Python", PSF, or related trademarks (e.g., Zope, Jython) to endorse derived products without prior written permission, emphasizing protection of Python-specific branding.General prohibition on using the copyright holder's or contributors' names for endorsement without permission, without naming specific trademarks.
Historical ClausesAdopted in 2004 without an advertising clause, avoiding the restrictive acknowledgment requirements present in the original 4-Clause BSD variant.Evolved from the original BSD license by removing the advertising clause in 1999, which had mandated promotional acknowledgments; the 3-Clause version aligns with PSFL in this regard.
License PreservationMandates inclusion of the complete PSFL text and any stacked licenses for bundled components (e.g., third-party modules in Python distributions), ensuring traceability in complex ecosystems.Requires retention of copyright, conditions, and disclaimers but does not explicitly address multi-license stacks in distributions.
GPL CompatibilityIncludes language affirming compatibility with the GNU GPL version 2, as verified by FSF approval on October 22, 2004, facilitating integration in GPL-linked projects.Deemed compatible with GPL version 2 by FSF interpretation, though without explicit affirmative language, relying on the absence of conflicting terms.
These distinctions reflect the PSFL's tailoring to the Python ecosystem's needs, such as safeguarding and distribution of composite software, while maintaining parity with BSD-3-Clause in core permissiveness; no empirical data indicates significant divergence in barriers or contribution patterns attributable to these variances.

Relation to MIT License

The Software Foundation License (PSFL) and the share core attributes as permissive open-source licenses, granting licensees broad rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and sell copies of the software without requirements, while mandating only the preservation of original copyright notices and license terms in redistributions. Both licenses disclaim warranties and limit liability to the extent permitted , fostering by avoiding restrictions on derivatives. The explicitly requires inclusion of its permission notice alongside copyright in all copies or substantial portions, a condition mirrored implicitly in PSFL's redistribution clauses, though PSFL applies this to Python-specific artifacts like the history file. Key differences arise in structure and scope, with the MIT License's brevity—typically a single paragraph—contrasting PSFL's expanded text, which incorporates explicit patent grants and historical preservation mandates to address Python's pre-PSF licensing evolution. Unlike the MIT License, PSFL includes a dedicated section granting a royalty-free patent license for claims licensor could assert against implementations, reflecting pragmatic adaptations for collaborative ecosystems with potential IP overhang from contributors. PSFL also requires redistributors to include an unaltered "HISTORY" file documenting prior licenses (e.g., CNRI and BeOpen terms from Python's 1990s origins), ensuring traceability absent in MIT's minimalist framework. While MIT lacks PSF-specific governance ties, PSFL frames the agreement between the Python Software Foundation and licensees, embedding oversight for Python's stewardship. This added complexity in PSFL empirically supports Python's management of a decade-spanning , enabling relicensing of modules under unified terms without disrupting contributions, whereas MIT's excels in projects unburdened by historical accretions. PSFL's provisions, approved by the on October 22, 2004, thus represent an evolution tailored to 's pragmatic growth, prioritizing continuity over MIT's universal minimalism.

GPL Compatibility and Copyleft Alternatives

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) permits the combination of its licensed code with software under the GNU General Public License (GPL), facilitating interoperability in mixed-license projects. This compatibility arises because the PSFL's permissive terms allow Python code to be incorporated into GPL-licensed works, provided the overall distribution adheres to GPL requirements for source code availability. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has explicitly endorsed this aspect, thanking the Python core team for crafting a GPL-compatible license in Python 2.0.1 and subsequent releases, which enables non-copyleft Python usage alongside GPL components without license conflicts. In contrast to the GPL's strong mechanism—which requires any distributed works, including those linking GPL , to adopt the GPL and modifications—the PSFL imposes no such reciprocal sharing obligations. This distinction avoids the "viral" propagation of terms, where integrations would otherwise necessitate full release, thereby enabling developers to build and distribute closed-source extensions or applications atop without mandatory openness. For example, machine learning frameworks and enterprise tools, such as those in or deployment, leverage 's and permissive third-party modules to create non-open s, a flexibility precluded under GPL's of communal . Empirical analyses of ecosystems reveal that permissive licenses like the PSFL correlate with elevated commercial uptake and broader adoption, outperforming alternatives in and . from large-scale scans indicate permissive licenses now dominate at approximately 67% of components, up from 41% in 2012, reflecting developer and corporate preferences for reduced barriers to reuse. Studies further substantiate that restrictions, by limiting revenue models and discouraging closed-source contributions, yield lower commercial participation compared to permissive frameworks, which foster innovation through unencumbered forking and . Python's pervasive use in commercial domains, including over 80% of workflows as of 2023, underscores this advantage, as the PSFL's non-viral structure has empirically driven ecosystem growth without the adoption frictions observed in GPL-centric projects.

Adoption and Implementation

Use in the Python Standard Library

The Python Standard Library incorporates modules licensed under the Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) version 2.0 for all new contributions accepted after the project's relicensing transition completed in early 2001, ensuring permissive terms for redistribution and modification while requiring preservation of copyright notices. Historical modules originating from pre-2001 releases, such as those under prior CNRI or BeOpen licenses, are handled through explicit stacking of compatible terms within the distribution's license documentation, allowing the overall package to operate under PSFL without violating earlier grants. This approach maintains legal continuity during Python's evolution from versions 2.1 onward. Contributions to the standard library are governed by the PSF Contributor Agreement (CLA), under which submitters retain copyright ownership but grant the PSF irrevocable, worldwide rights to sublicense, distribute, and enforce the code under PSFL terms. This CLA, required for integration into core releases, supports collective defense against infringement—such as enabling the PSF to pursue litigation on behalf of the project—without mandating copyright transfer, though individual contributors may voluntarily assign rights if desired. Release managers verify compliance during the PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals) process for standard library inclusions, rejecting non-conforming submissions. Python 3.12, released on October 2, 2023, exemplifies full PSFL version 2.0 compliance across its , with all modules processed via the CLA and no residual pre-2001 exceptions beyond documented historical notices. Commercial distributions, including Oracle's embedded implementations, retain unmodified PSFL terms for standard library components, permitting binary inclusion and derivative works without imposing additional licensing obligations beyond notice preservation and attribution. This aligns with PSFL's design for seamless integration into proprietary systems while upholding origin terms.

Application in Third-Party Python Projects

The Software Foundation License (PSFL) sees voluntary adoption in third-party projects distributed via PyPI, often by maintainers seeking alignment with the PSF's ecosystem standards, though it remains optional and less prevalent than simpler permissive licenses like the . As of August 2021, 482 PyPI projects explicitly tagged their license as OSI Approved :: Python Software Foundation License, representing a niche but established usage pattern among external packages. This adoption highlights the PSFL's flexibility for projects emphasizing compatibility with 's core codebase, without imposing requirements that might deter commercial integration. Prominent examples include , a widely used plotting library, which employs the PSFL to facilitate redistribution and modification while maintaining PSF attribution. Such choices are common in visualization and scientific computing tools where PSF endorsement signals reliability, but dual-licensing with restrictive terms like GPL is rare, as the PSFL's permissiveness already permits proprietary derivatives without reciprocal source disclosure obligations. In contrast, many high-download PyPI libraries—such as Requests or Flask—opt for the due to its brevity and absence of PSF-specific clauses, prioritizing minimal legal overhead for broad reuse. Adoption patterns have shown no major shifts through , with PSFL usage persisting in PSF-supported or community-vetted projects rather than expanding ubiquitously, underscoring its role as a targeted rather than default choice for third-party developers. This selective application supports innovation in the ecosystem by enabling seamless into both open-source and commercial applications without licensing friction.

Licensing Stack for Historical Code

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL) incorporates a licensing stack to accommodate code developed prior to 2001, when Python's stewardship transitioned to the PSF. This stack comprises the original terms from earlier custodians: the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) for versions 0.9.0 to 1.2 (1991–1995), the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) for versions 1.3 to 1.5.2 (1995–1999) and 1.6.1 (2001), and BeOpen.com for Python 2.0 (2000). The CNRI portion explicitly grants patent licenses alongside copyright permissions, enabling reproduction, derivative works, and distribution without royalty, while BeOpen terms provide similar non-exclusive, royalty-free rights but under California law with an "AS IS" disclaimer. These historical licenses apply solely to the specific modules or components originating under them within distributions, ensuring that pre-2001 code retains its original permissions without requiring relicensing or modification. Distributions must propagate the corresponding notices, disclaimers, and any required acknowledgments—such as retaining CWI's permission statements or CNRI's handle (hdl:1895.22/1012)—but impose no additional obligations like source disclosure or propagation on users. This structure avoids retroactive imposition of stricter terms, maintaining empirical continuity for code from the 1990s that might otherwise face compatibility hurdles. By preserving these layered permissions, the PSFL facilitates the inclusion of foundational contributions from volunteer developers during Python's formative years at CWI and CNRI, without disrupting downstream use or requiring comprehensive audits of legacy elements. This approach empirically sustains the project's codebase integrity, as evidenced by the unchanged propagation of these terms in subsequent releases like Python 2.1 and beyond, where the license overlays but does not supplant affected historical portions.

Reception and Debates

Benefits for Innovation and Commercial Adoption

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), as a permissive , enables the creation of proprietary extensions and integrations by allowing unmodified or modified code to be embedded in closed-source applications without requiring the release of derivative . This flexibility contrasts with licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), which mandate source disclosure for any combined works, potentially discouraging commercial entities from leveraging the software due to risks. A prominent example is the Anaconda distribution, which builds on Python's permissive terms to package the language with enterprise-oriented tools, including proprietary components for and deployment, thereby facilitating its adoption in commercial workflows since its inception in 2012. Such distributions drive by offering value-added services atop the open core, enabling companies to develop competitive products without the legal overhead of obligations. Research on open-source dynamics reveals that permissive licenses like the PSFL correlate with elevated contributor participation and project vitality, as they reduce barriers to entry for developers wary of GPL-style "viral" effects that could contaminate proprietary codebases. For instance, analyses of license trends show permissive models associated with higher developer engagement levels, leading to accelerated innovation cycles through broader collaboration uninhibited by mandatory reciprocity. This licensing strategy embodies market-oriented incentives, permitting firms to invest in Python extensions while retaining competitive advantages, thereby countering arguments for enforced sharing by evidencing robust ecosystem growth via voluntary contributions aligned with economic self-interest rather than regulatory compulsion.

Criticisms from Copyleft Advocates

Copyleft advocates, such as Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), argue that permissive licenses like the Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), which is BSD-style, fail to ensure the ongoing freedom of derivative works by allowing users to incorporate the code into proprietary software without requiring the release of source modifications or improvements back to the upstream project. This permissiveness, they contend, incentivizes companies to fork the software privately, diminishing community feedback loops and potentially leading to a net loss of free software as enhancements remain hidden. Stallman has specifically cautioned against relying on lax permissive licenses for new projects, viewing them as insufficient safeguards against the encroachment of non-free software that exploits free codebases. Although the PSFL's GPL —achieved through FSF collaboration on versions post-2.1—mitigates risks of incompatibility for GPL-linked derivatives, proponents maintain that this does not address the core issue of unreciprocated contributions from closed-source adaptations. No PSFL-specific lawsuits have emerged, consistent with the challenges of litigating permissive licenses lacking strong obligations. Claims of resultant under-contribution to remain unverified, as the project's ecosystem demonstrates robust activity, with surpassing JavaScript as GitHub's most popular language in and supporting millions of repositories amid billions of total contributions. This empirical vitality counters assertions of stagnation tied to the license's leniency.

Empirical Outcomes on Open Source Contributions

Empirical analyses of projects indicate that permissive licenses, such as the PSFL, correlate with elevated levels of developer engagement and contribution activity compared to alternatives. A examining license impacts on found that permissive licensing is associated with higher developer interest and participation, leading to reduced through increased collaborative input. This aligns with broader patterns where permissive projects attract more external contributors, as their flexibility facilitates integration into diverse workflows without reciprocal obligations. Under the PSFL, adopted for core Python distributions around 2001, contributions to the repository and ecosystem have expanded markedly, mirroring Python's ascent to the most-used language on by . The reported record community engagement in its 2024 annual impact summary, with Python's prominence in AI and driving sustained voluntary inputs amid global developer growth exceeding 5.2 billion contributions across platforms that year. Permissive terms have enabled this trajectory, as evidenced by Python's outsized role in activity surges, including contributions from emerging regions like , , and . These outcomes refute predictions of depleted contributions in non-copyleft regimes, as PSFL-governed projects demonstrate robust, self-sustaining participation without mandates for source disclosure. surveys and metrics consistently show permissive ecosystems sustaining higher activity rates, with Python's voluntary model yielding exponential contributor influxes tied to practical utility rather than enforcement.

Broader Impact

Influence on Python's Ecosystem Growth

The permissive nature of the Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), which grants broad rights to use, modify, and distribute Python software with minimal restrictions, has facilitated the explosive growth of the package on the (PyPI). As of October 2025, PyPI hosts over 692,000 projects, enabling developers to build and share extensions that leverage Python's core without licensing conflicts that could arise under regimes like the GPL. This compatibility has lowered , allowing individual contributors and organizations to proliferate specialized libraries for domains such as , , and , thereby amplifying Python's utility and user base through composable, reusable components. Corporate adoption has been a key driver of this expansion, as the PSFL's avoidance of viral sharing requirements permits integration into proprietary systems, incentivizing investments from tech giants. Companies like and have channeled resources into Python-based tools—evident in their sponsorship of initiatives and development of frameworks compatible with Python's licensing—accelerating ecosystem maturation without forcing disclosure of internal modifications. This dynamic has causally contributed to Python's dominance, evidenced by its top ranking in the IEEE 2025 programming languages assessment, where metrics including job demand and community activity underscore the language's entrenched position amid rising industrial reliance. Empirical indicators of this influence include sustained surges in PyPI uploads and downloads, correlating with Python's ecosystem serving as a foundation for scalable applications in and , where permissive licensing mitigates risks of redistribution obligations that deter commercial entities. While other factors like readable syntax contribute, the PSFL's structure has empirically enabled a feedback loop: broader adoption begets more libraries, which in turn attract users, solidifying Python's role as a in computational workflows.

Role in Software Industry Practices

The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), with its permissive structure allowing redistribution in both open and closed-source contexts, has served as a model for licensing in specialized domains like scientific computing, where compatibility across diverse toolchains is paramount. Projects such as , licensed under the compatible BSD-3-Clause terms, leverage this approach to enable integration with numerical analysis software without imposing reciprocal openness requirements. Similarly, various independent initiatives have directly adopted the PSFL to mirror its balance of contributor protections and commercial flexibility, fostering ecosystems reliant on modular, interoperable components. Within industry practices, the PSFL aligns with initiatives to mitigate by encouraging reliance on OSI-vetted standards over bespoke agreements, which often complicate audits and integrations. The OSI's License Proliferation Project underscores how standard permissive licenses reduce administrative burdens for enterprises managing mixed-license codebases, promoting efficiency in supply chains spanning cloud services to embedded systems. This shift favors OSI-approved permissive variants, diminishing the use of non-standard terms that fragment and elevate compliance costs. Permissive licenses like the PSFL facilitate greater incorporation into products than alternatives such as the GPL, which mandate availability for and deter closed-source embedding. Industry analyses confirm that such licenses impose minimal restrictions, enabling companies to embed components without extensive legal reviews or modifications, a preference evident in software composition scans where permissive terms dominate commercial portfolios. This empirical pattern supports broader adoption of OSI standards, streamlining development pipelines while preserving innovation incentives. The Python Software Foundation License (PSFL), a permissive , has encountered no major reported violations leading to litigation since its adoption for in 2001. The (PSF) has not pursued formal enforcement actions against alleged infringers, instead emphasizing community-driven compliance through documentation, FAQs, and contributor agreements that promote voluntary adherence to license terms such as attribution and non-endorsement clauses. This approach contrasts with licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL), where organizations such as the have initiated multiple lawsuits for violations, including cases against embedded device manufacturers like (settled in 2008) and (2009) for failing to provide . The PSFL's explicit grant clause, which licenses contributors' s to users on reasonable terms, has been implicitly upheld through widespread adoption without successful challenges in court, reflecting the license's design to facilitate commercial integration without reciprocal obligations. No precedents exist questioning the enforceability of this grant under U.S. or , unlike disputes over retaliation clauses in licenses such as the Common Public License. From 2001 to 2025, the PSFL text remained unchanged despite governance updates, including 2024 bylaws revisions aimed at membership procedures and board operations, which did not alter licensing obligations or trigger disputes. This stability underscores the license's robustness, with any potential issues resolved informally via policies rather than adversarial proceedings.

References

  1. [1]
    History and License — Python 3.14.0 documentation
    Python software and documentation are licensed under the Python Software Foundation License Version 2. Starting with Python 3.8.6, examples, recipes, and other ...
  2. [2]
    Python Software Foundation License 2.0 - SPDX
    The PSF-2.0 license grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use Python, but it is provided "AS IS" with no warranties.
  3. [3]
    Python Software Foundation License FAQ
    Jul 24, 2023 · Unlike some open source licenses, the PSF License allows Python to be included in non-open applications, either in unmodified or modified form.
  4. [4]
    The CNRI portion of the multi-part Python License
    CNRI hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or display publicly, prepare derivative ...Missing: 1995-2000 | Show results with:1995-2000
  5. [5]
    Interpretation of Python licenses and OSI status
    Jul 18, 2024 · Python's (or rather CPython's) license is a conglomerate of different licenses, representing the project's history and its different stewards: ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    Python 2.0 License
    The Python 2.0 license grants a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, reproduce, and distribute the software, provided the license is retained ...
  7. [7]
    Python Software Foundation: Articles of Incorporation
    Articles of Incorporation of the Python Software Foundation. State of Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations Filed 04:30 PM 02/20/2001 010084958 - ...
  8. [8]
    Executive Summary: The Python Software Foundation
    Licensing. Python is licensed under a "stack" of open source licenses, which represent its history as an open source project under the sponsorship of a number ...
  9. [9]
    2018 Museum Fellow Guido van Rossum, Python Creator ...
    Apr 5, 2018 · First released by its creator Guido van Rossum in 1991, the Python programming language lies behind an enormous variety of software applications ...
  10. [10]
    Python 2.1 license
    This LICENSE AGREEMENT is between the Python Software Foundation ("PSF"), and the Individual or Organization ("Licensee") accessing and otherwise using Python ...
  11. [11]
    Python 1.6 License FAQ
    This FAQ addresses questions concerning the CNRI Open Source License and its impact on past and future Python releases.
  12. [12]
    Python 2.1 | Python.org
    See Python 2.1.3 for a patch release and the download page for more recent releases. The final version Python 2.1was released on April 17, 2001. See ...Missing: adoption | Show results with:adoption
  13. [13]
    Python Software Foundation License Version 2
    Nov 15, 2008 · This license was approved as the official PSF License Version 2 on October 22, 2004. The only differences between this and version 1 of the PSF ...
  14. [14]
    Python license approved by the Open Source Initiative - Linux.com
    Nov 30, 2001 · The PSF license received only positive comments and was considered likely to be passed by the board. Helping the case was the fact that the PSF ...Missing: adoption | Show results with:adoption<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    Python License, Version 2 - Open Source Initiative
    Subject to the terms and conditions of this BeOpen Python License Agreement, BeOpen hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license ...Missing: transition | Show results with:transition
  16. [16]
    Notice of Python Software Foundation Bylaws Change - PSF blog
    Jul 8, 2025 · This post serves as notice that the Board of the Python Software Foundation has resolved to amend the Bylaws, effective July 23, 2025.
  17. [17]
    Propietary licensing of open source code
    Jan 17, 2022 · Unlike some open source licenses, the PSF License allows Python to be included in non-open applications, either in unmodified or modified form.
  18. [18]
    Python 2.2 license
    Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, PSF hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license to reproduce, ...
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
    The MIT License - Open Source Initiative
    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR ...
  21. [21]
    FSF statement | Python.org
    The Free Software Foundation thanks the board of the Python Foundation and Guido van Rossum for their cooperation in developing a license for Python 2.0.1 that ...
  22. [22]
    Top Open Source Licenses and Legal Risk | Black Duck Blog
    Mar 5, 2025 · We rate permissive licenses as low-risk licenses. Medium risk: Weak Copyleft licenses. Weak copyleft licenses usually require you to make any ...
  23. [23]
  24. [24]
    Copy-left behind: Permissive MIT, Apache open-source licenses on ...
    Jan 17, 2020 · Rewind to 2012 and copyleft licenses could be found with 59 per cent of projects while permissive licenses accompanied just 41 per cent. Chart ...
  25. [25]
    Open Source Licenses: Trends And Predictions - Mend.io
    Jan 23, 2020 · According to this year's data, 67% of open source components have permissive licenses. ... Learn about copyleft vs permissive licenses. Read more.
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Open Source Software Licenses Impact on Businesses - DiVA portal
    Jun 9, 2023 · Permissive open source licenses provide greater flexibility in commercial use and distribution, while restrictive licenses limit revenue.Missing: uptake | Show results with:uptake
  27. [27]
    A Large-Scale Empirical Study of Open Source License Usage
    Jul 2, 2024 · In this paper, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of license usage across five package management platforms, ie, Maven, NPM, PyPI, RubyGems, and Cargo.Missing: uptake | Show results with:uptake
  28. [28]
    PSF Contributor Agreement | Python Software Foundation
    To enter the agreement, please fill out your name, address and initial license (Academic Free License v. 3.0 or Apache License, Version 2.0) in the eSign box ...
  29. [29]
    Python Release Python 3.12.0
    Oct 2, 2023 · Python 3.12.0 includes new f-string parsing, buffer protocol support, a new debugging API, and a 5% performance improvement.Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
  30. [30]
    Python Software Foundation License Version 2 - Oracle Help Center
    PSF is making Python available to Licensee on an "AS IS" basis. PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
  31. [31]
    Components Licensed Under the Python Software Foundation License
    PSF hereby grants Licensee a nonexclusive, royalty-free, world-wide license to reproduce, analyze, test, perform and/or display publicly, prepare derivative ...Missing: PSFL | Show results with:PSFL
  32. [32]
    Making the PSFL-2.0 better for the community - Python Discussions
    Aug 31, 2021 · Those are generic licenses, so can be used on arbitrary code. There's no need to turn the. Python license or the PSF license v2 into a generic ...
  33. [33]
    Matplotlib - PyPI
    License: Python Software Foundation License (License agreement for matplotlib versions 1.3.0 and later ==========================================...) Author ...3.8.3 Feb 14, 2024 · 3.5.3 Aug 10, 2022 · 5 projects · Matplotlib 3.8.4
  34. [34]
    Python license implications after modifying python or its interpreter
    May 27, 2023 · Python is released under permissive license, not a copyleft license like the GPL, so in general providing source code is not a requirement.
  35. [35]
    Python License 2.0 Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal
    The license under which Python 2.0 was distributed; includes the licenses from previous versions of python. You must only fulfill the straightforward ...
  36. [36]
    Pricing for Individuals and Organizations - Anaconda
    Anaconda Free Plan gives you access to our cloud-hosted and locally distributed Python packages. The cloud distribution is preconfigured in Notebooks, where ...Anaconda for Education · Terms of Service · Contact Sales · Business Plan
  37. [37]
    Anaconda Licensing Pitfalls: What You Need to Know - Eracent
    Oct 15, 2025 · While it includes many open-source packages (like NumPy and Pandas), the Anaconda installer itself is proprietary and subject to Anaconda Inc.'s ...Missing: extensions | Show results with:extensions
  38. [38]
    Is Python an Open Source License? - BytePlus
    This flexibility has made Python a popular choice for commercial software development, enabling companies to innovate and compete without legal hindrances.Missing: benefits | Show results with:benefits
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Impact of license selection on open source software quality
    Because permissive licenses have higher levels of developer engagement (Subramaniam et al., 2009), more developer involvement may be understood to correspond to ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] First Results About Motivation and Impact of License Changes in ...
    May 23, 2016 · Ten years ago the copyleft licenses represented more or less 80% of all the open source projects. However the success of permissive licenses has ...
  41. [41]
    Open Source Licensing Simplified: A Comparative Overview of ...
    Jan 24, 2023 · One of the key differences between the MIT and GPL licenses is how they handle derivative works. With the MIT license, derivative works can ...Missing: PSFL | Show results with:PSFL
  42. [42]
    Developers are afraid to use the GPL license for being less ... - Reddit
    May 2, 2024 · Permissive licences have massive benefits over the GPL. RMS specifically wrote the GPL to be unfriendly to business, to be viral and more ...GPL a no-no for Python web frameworks? - RedditWhy I chose a permissive license even though I prefer copyleft on ...More results from www.reddit.comMissing: PSF Python
  43. [43]
    Licensing - Python for Data Science
    Jul 30, 2025 · Permissive open source licenses allow broader reuse than copyleft licenses. Derivatives and copies of the source code can be distributed under ...
  44. [44]
    Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project
    Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL. If you want to release your work to the public domain, we encourage you to use formal tools to do so.
  45. [45]
    Octoverse: AI leads Python to top language as the number of global ...
    Oct 29, 2024 · More than 82% of GitHub contributions are made to private repositories. Developers made 4.3 billion contributions across more than 181 million ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  46. [46]
    2024 PSF Annual Impact Report | Python.org
    The PSF celebrated a year of remarkable growth, with Python becoming the most popular language on GitHub and worldwide community engagement at an all-time high.
  47. [47]
    Open Source Projects Hit 1 Billion Contributions. What's Next?
    May 19, 2025 · That's an average of over 2.7 million contributions per day, or roughly 32 every second. In relatively short order, open source development has ...
  48. [48]
    PyPI · The Python Package Index
    Find, install and publish Python packages with the Python Package Index. Search PyPI. Search. Or browse projects. 692,405 projects. 7,565,213 releases.Help · The PyPI Blog · Trusted Publishers | PyPI Docs · Docs
  49. [49]
  50. [50]
    The Top Programming Languages 2025 - IEEE Spectrum
    In the “Spectrum” default ranking, which is weighted with the interests of IEEE members in mind, we see that once again Python has the top spot, with the ...
  51. [51]
    PyPI Download Stats
    Analytics for PyPI packages. Package: Search among 679,015 python packages from PyPI (updated daily). API · About · FAQs. Hosted by The PSF.All packages · Track packages · Top packages · API
  52. [52]
    NumPy license — NumPy v2.4.dev0 Manual
    Copyright (c) 2005-2025, NumPy Developers. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted.
  53. [53]
    The License Proliferation Project - Open Source Initiative
    The OSI constituted a committee to study the issue and make recommends, which are now public. In 2006, the OSI Board accepted the License Proliferation Report.
  54. [54]
    Five Types of Software Licenses You Need to Understand
    Mar 21, 2024 · Permissive. Permissive licenses contain minimal restrictions on how the software can be modified or redistributed. They are also known as ...
  55. [55]
    Guide to Open Source Licenses: Use, Obligations, and Risk
    Oct 5, 2016 · Permissive open source licenses generally allow you to use an open source component freely as long as you maintain any copyright notices.
  56. [56]
    Legal Statements | Python Software Foundation
    The licenses, trademarks, and copyrights for other implementations of Python (such as IronPython, Stackless Python, and PyPy) may vary and are managed by their ...
  57. [57]
    PSF Bylaws | Python Software Foundation
    Bylaws of the Python Software Foundation, Version 2. ARTICLE I Business Offices. The corporation shall have such offices either within or outside the State of ...