[Python-ideas] stdlib process GSoC 2014 ideas

[Georg Brandl]

Am 27.02.2014 22:40, schrieb anatoly techtonik:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Tim Delaney
> <timothy.c.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28 February 2014 07:32, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/techtonik/python-stdlib
>>>
>>> This needs to be extended and integrated into stdlib development process.
>>
>> Wow Anatoly. Are you finally going to sign the PSF Contributor Agreement?
> 
> This idea is for GSoC students. python-stdlib is free from the license burden
> with UNLICENSE, so you better ask PSF why they don't accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> Offtopic, but since it is about GSoC, and there are people studying copyright
> and open source, I'll explain my position just in case somebody will be able to
> help with that in the future.
> 
> I don't sign CLA, because:
> 
> 1. I don't want to release my code under restrictive PSF license
>     https://tldrlegal.com/license/python-license-2.0

You don't, the PSF does.

> 2. PSF doesn't comply with terms of Apache 2.0 license (include license)
>     which is probably chosen by at least one contributor for CLA
>     https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-(apache-2.0)

This is not true.

> 3. I don't want to give PSF exclusive rights for all code and documentation
>     to be released under any other "open source" license. PSF may be bought
>     by some corporation and they will have the right to impose their own
>     "open source license text" on it. (yes, I don't trust people at all).

This is a valid concern, however for code with your "UNLICENSE" any corporation
can do anything with it right now anyway.

> 4. If I sign, I will be less motivated to open the Python docs under CC-BY
>     license with examples that can be copy-pasted without requiring PSF
>     license in your project. Right now using logging examples without it is
>     illegal.

This *might* be a valid concern (IANAL), but it's one I've never heard from you
so far.  Why don't you start discussing this one explicitly?

> 5. Everything is owned by PSF is wrong.

Well, the PSF owns a lot of money, and I don't think money is wrong.

Jokes aside, the PSF explicitly *doesn't* own your copyright due to the CLA.

>     Python is a community project,
>     and core code should be shared as open as possible (with credits where
>     due). Public domain with optional crediting and patent grant is ideal.
>     Trademarks are not affected. Nobody is forced and can do what they
>     want. And current licensing uncertainty no good for collaboration.
> 6. I want people to have free entry for participating in open source projects,
>     meaning that the patent grant and agreement to release their contribution
>     under the open source license that project uses, should work by default
>     without any CLAs.

These are again valid concerns from your side, but you will have to understand
that the PSF does not have the freedom to abolish the CLA.

Georg