[Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

[Nick Coghlan]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Anatoly, and have
> tried to overlook your general attitude of being somewhat pushy, but
> this has pushed me over the edge. If you had some questions about the
> license, you should have asked the PSF or here on python-dev instead
> of saying that the PSF is not doing a good job. From where I come from
> you first try to calmly talk to the people who are doing something
> that you have questions about before calling for their overthrowing.
>
> Considering essentially all of the core developers are PSF members you
> have just insulted the entire development team by saying they are
> doing a poor job in shepherding the project they work on in their
> spare time . Good job. And by the way, some of the core developers
> also used to be (that's me) or currently are on the board of
> directors. Well done indeed.

Thanks for taking the time to respond Brett - saves me from saying
basically the same thing.

Anatoly - try to give other people a little credit for not being
complete idiots, OK? A lot of stuff in the world doesn't make much
sense from a green field point of view, but is comprehensible once the
long and involved history is taken into account. Jumping to the
conclusion that people are incompetent idiots just encourages them to
ignore your input (since you're clearly not listening to anyone else).

As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people
don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think
of it, and get the answers "BSD style" and "GPL compatible" and are
happy with that. The corporate history is such that the PSF probably
doesn't have the legal rights to simplify it (we might have some scope
to tidy it up, such as splitting it into two files as you suggest, but
we would have to spend money to find out for sure, and don't consider
that a particularly good use of contributor's funds).

As far as the issue of not including the contributor agreement related
licenses in the source goes, note that the contributor agreement
explicitly provides the PSF with relicensing rights. If you want to
dispute the legal effectiveness of that then you'll want to A) be a
lawyer or at least consult one and B) take it up with Van Lindbergh,
the PSF's lawyer. Normally we don't require contributor agreements for
minor patches and other submissions, but given the attitude you have
displayed here, I expect we'll make an exception for you (i.e. until
you provide evidence of a change of heart by signing a contributor
agreement, I'd consider any patches you provide to be on sufficiently
legally dubious ground that we aren't in a position to accept them).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia