From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 06:15:37 2013
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:15:37 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Wikipedia / CLA
In-Reply-To: <20130815105008.749ceea8@fsol>
References: <CAPkN8xLsxdC4G_R4Z9qvHBqnu1hSpdWwFzsv4m1v5W-07ruC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com>
 <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20130815105008.749ceea8@fsol>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+mCrnRqi-MM0TmDE13xODVmeLRaiXjmM0_nO9r8xLXZg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:59 +1000
> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On May 1, 2013, at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Wikipedia doesn't require to sign up a CLA to edit pages. Is CLA
>> > > required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? Why?
>> >
>> > We are not Wikipedia.
>>
>> True, but both Wikimedia Foundation and Python Software Foundation
>> accept contributions from third parties, under a free-software license,
>> for redistribution to others. It seems a salient comparison for this
>> discussion.
>>
>> So what is the difference that means Wikimedia Foundation do not ask for
>> additional agreement documents, while PSF do ask for additional
>> agreement documents from the contributor?
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation (with the FSF's complicity) showed how much
> they respected their contributors when they switched all content from
> GFDL to BY-SA without even asking them, and without them having signed
> a CLA.
>
> I don't think that's a very good example, unless you wanted to argue
> that an organization doesn't need a CLA to act like a jerk.

This "Wikimedia Foundation's Way" explains it all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AxelBoldt/Let's_switch_to_CC-BY-SA

And this is a letter regarding "breach of trust" from FSF:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-12-fdl-open-letter

I don't see anything wrong. IMO less than 0.1% of Wikipedia authors cared
about GFDL before and even less care about GFDL vs CC-BY-SA
differences. What made people sad is that they were not asked. But from
technical point of view there are less than 0.01% who disagree with the
CC-BY-SA choice, so it is a good move in the end. In addition CC-BY-SA
can not be escaped anymore, so technically they've just fixed a bug.
--
anatoly t.

From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Nov 22 06:22:03 2013
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:22:03 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] CC0 for Python Documentation
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xLjv=-JYABbG2subtQAo=hK_cwn9R73C+mQi4Cai-62gA@mail.gmail.com>

Adding python-legal-sig at python.org to CC. Please,
follow up on python-ideas.


CC0 is a way to free public works from legal burden:
https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0

Here is the reasoning why people do this:
https://creativecommons.org/tag/cc0

At first I thought about CC-BY, but then realized that no
authorship is respected. As you may see here -
http://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html - PSF is the sole
owner of the docs with no reference to the work of people
who have contributed. No wonder that there is not much
motivation to collaborate.


So, given all the above I'd like to propose using CC0 for
Python documentation. Benefits:
 - you don't need to ask PSF for permissions and
   clarification of your rights
 - you can still count and credit contributions regardless
   of is there is copyright signature of the owner or not
 - this also makes it clear that docs are from community
   for community, you can fork and enhance
 - you don't have to sign exclusive CLA to make edits
   to documentation
 - you don't have to supply huge license file if you
   copy/paste relevant pieces from the docs


Now the questions that needs to be answered.

PSF is made to protect Python. How sitting on top of
Python documentation copyright helps it to do so?

What are consequences if Python Documentation is
released with CC0 license?

Do you think it will hurt Python? If yes, then how?
Do you think that current CLA is impediment for
contributing patches to documentation?
Do you think that using CC0 will increase contributions
and tools for working with Python docs?

Do you think that current situation is better?
Do you think that CC-BY is better?
Do you think that CC-BY-SA is better?

It looks like a poll. Maybe PSF should create one?
--
anatoly t.

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Fri Nov 22 23:50:39 2013
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:50:39 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
Message-ID: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>


Hello,

Refocussing on one of Anatoly's points (and without cross-posting :-)):

The page "Copyright" in the documentation claims that the Python code
and documentation is (c) the PSF
(see http://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html ).

However, this is not true, and it is not what the LICENSE says: the
LICENSE says the PSF grants the rights to the end user (which is ok,
thanks to the CLAs). The LICENSE doesn't claim the PSF owns the
copyright (which it doesn't, since there's no copyright assignment).

How should we change the page above? Is it ok to change:

  Copyright ? 2001-2013 Python Software Foundation. All rights reserved.

to e.g.:

  Copyright ? 2001-2013 Core Python Developers and Contributors. All
  rights reserved.

Or would another wording be preferrable?

(note: I'm not trying to discuss the other copyright lines - before
year 2000 - before I don't have any info about that)

(Terry Reedy points there's also the doc footer which says "?
Copyright 1990-2013, Python Software Foundation")

Regards

Antoine.



From janzert at janzert.com  Sat Nov 23 00:32:07 2013
From: janzert at janzert.com (Janzert)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:32:07 -0500
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
In-Reply-To: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>
Message-ID: <l6opi0$pnc$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 11/22/2013 5:50 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Refocussing on one of Anatoly's points (and without cross-posting :-)):
>
> The page "Copyright" in the documentation claims that the Python code
> and documentation is (c) the PSF
> (see http://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html ).
>
> However, this is not true, and it is not what the LICENSE says: the
> LICENSE says the PSF grants the rights to the end user (which is ok,
> thanks to the CLAs). The LICENSE doesn't claim the PSF owns the
> copyright (which it doesn't, since there's no copyright assignment).

 From the LICENSE file, PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, 
Paragraph 2 in part reads:
> provided, however, that PSF's License Agreement and PSF's notice of copyright,
> i.e., "Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
> 2011, 2012, 2013 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved" are retained

Paragraph 1 also states that the license applies to both python source 
and documentation.

Janzert



From mal at egenix.com  Sat Nov 23 01:21:20 2013
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:21:20 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
In-Reply-To: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>
Message-ID: <528FF500.4000506@egenix.com>

On 22.11.2013 23:50, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Refocussing on one of Anatoly's points (and without cross-posting :-)):
> 
> The page "Copyright" in the documentation claims that the Python code
> and documentation is (c) the PSF
> (see http://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html ).
> 
> However, this is not true, and it is not what the LICENSE says: the
> LICENSE says the PSF grants the rights to the end user (which is ok,
> thanks to the CLAs). The LICENSE doesn't claim the PSF owns the
> copyright (which it doesn't, since there's no copyright assignment).
> 
> How should we change the page above? Is it ok to change:
> 
>   Copyright ? 2001-2013 Python Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
> 
> to e.g.:
> 
>   Copyright ? 2001-2013 Core Python Developers and Contributors. All
>   rights reserved.
> 
> Or would another wording be preferrable?

I'm not sure this would be correct, since the copyright on the
page refers to the distributions, not their contents.

Copyright is a bit tricky in this respect: the distribution file has
a copyright/license and the contents of that distribution may have
another set of copyrights/licenses.

If you are allowed to create distributions of some software (which
the PSF is via the CLAs), the distribution you create is
copyrightable as well. You can own the copyright to the distribution
without owning the copyright of the included works.

> (note: I'm not trying to discuss the other copyright lines - before
> year 2000 - before I don't have any info about that)
> 
> (Terry Reedy points there's also the doc footer which says "?
> Copyright 1990-2013, Python Software Foundation")

This should probably just link to the copyright page. The PSF was
founded in 2001, so the 1990 date is wrong anyway.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Nov 23 2013)
>>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ...   http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ...       http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Sat Nov 23 01:23:58 2013
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:23:58 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol>
	<l6opi0$pnc$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <20131123012358.7e9cc635@fsol>

On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:32:07 -0500
Janzert <janzert at janzert.com> wrote:
> 
>  From the LICENSE file, PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2, 
> Paragraph 2 in part reads:
> > provided, however, that PSF's License Agreement and PSF's notice of copyright,
> > i.e., "Copyright (c) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
> > 2011, 2012, 2013 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved" are retained
> 
> Paragraph 1 also states that the license applies to both python source 
> and documentation.

Hmm, that's interesting.  Is it a partial claim for copyright, i.e.
does the PSF have copyright on some of the code (which sounds likely
-- I suppose it may have inherited copyright from the previous
corporate copyright holders)?

Regards

Antoine.



From janzert at janzert.com  Sun Nov 24 01:18:52 2013
From: janzert at janzert.com (Janzert)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:18:52 -0500
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
In-Reply-To: <528FF500.4000506@egenix.com>
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol> <528FF500.4000506@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <l6rgll$ag7$1@ger.gmane.org>

On 11/22/2013 7:21 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
> This should probably just link to the copyright page. The PSF was
> founded in 2001, so the 1990 date is wrong anyway.
>

I don't know whether the 1990 date is correct or not. However it would 
not be surprising, or that uncommon, for an entity holding a copyright 
to be younger than the copyright itself.

Janzert


From mal at egenix.com  Mon Nov 25 11:43:58 2013
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:43:58 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
In-Reply-To: <l6rgll$ag7$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol> <528FF500.4000506@egenix.com>
 <l6rgll$ag7$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <529329EE.20808@egenix.com>

On 24.11.2013 01:18, Janzert wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 7:21 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>> This should probably just link to the copyright page. The PSF was
>> founded in 2001, so the 1990 date is wrong anyway.
>>
> 
> I don't know whether the 1990 date is correct or not. However it would not be surprising, or that
> uncommon, for an entity holding a copyright to be younger than the copyright itself.

You have a point there. I don't know whether any copyright was
transferred to the PSF when it was founded. I think putting the
full story together would probably be a good topic for a work
group.

What I do know is that some copyright was implicitly transferred
to the PSF after its creation by simply having the authors put
the PSF copyright notice on code they had written.

Later on, contrib agreements mostly replaced this approach. The
authors keep the copyright and the PSF gets to chose an open source
license for redistribution.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Nov 25 2013)
>>> Python Projects, Consulting and Support ...   http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC.Zope/Plone.Database.Adapter ...       http://zope.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Mon Nov 25 13:48:20 2013
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:48:20 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Copyright page in the documentation
References: <20131122235039.0ce1be26@fsol> <528FF500.4000506@egenix.com>
 <l6rgll$ag7$1@ger.gmane.org> <529329EE.20808@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <20131125134820.16e9f66f@fsol>

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:43:58 +0100
"M.-A. Lemburg" <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> 
> What I do know is that some copyright was implicitly transferred
> to the PSF after its creation by simply having the authors put
> the PSF copyright notice on code they had written.

Is that approach actually a valid way of transferring copyright?
That sounds a bit too... informal.

Regards

Antoine.