From ben+python at benfinney.id.au Thu Aug 15 02:53:59 2013 From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:59 +1000 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Jesse Noller writes: > On May 1, 2013, at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik 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? > [?] larger changes (just like code patches) require the ability for > redistribution and licensing downstream to other vendors such as > ActiveState, RedHat and others. The Apache License ? the free-software license which the PSF ask for on contributions to the Python code base ? allows every recipient, including the PSF, to do this already. If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, why does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? On the other hand, if the PSF requires additional powers not already granted (to all recipients) in the license, what are those additional powers and why does the PSF need them for a contribution? -- \ ?The most common way people give up their power is by thinking | `\ they don't have any.? ?Alice Walker | _o__) | Ben Finney From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 03:19:51 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:19:51 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Message-ID: <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Jesse Noller writes: > >> On May 1, 2013, at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik 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? Python is distributed to end users in packaged form, on operating systems and elsewhere. Wikipedia is distributed online and is done via mass collaboration. It would be next to impossible to prove legal provenance of the changes on Wikipedia. This means distributing the text in any commercial form is legally questionable. For python: we have to (as the PSF) be able to prove that the people committing the code have rights to that code. For example, if I, working for Foo, submit code to core, I must have a CLA in place from that company stating from the company and myself that I have the legal rights to submit that code and it is OK for the PSF to redistribute that code. > >> [?] larger changes (just like code patches) require the ability for >> redistribution and licensing downstream to other vendors such as >> ActiveState, RedHat and others. > > The Apache License ? the free-software license which the PSF ask for on > contributions to the Python code base ? allows every recipient, > including the PSF, to do this already. > > If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, why > does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? The special agreement document is the contributor agreement which companies, employees, and individuals sign to agree to license the changes under the Apache 2 license. That agreement must be in place to prove provenance of code and associated copyright assignments/etc in the case of a legal audit from companies which distribute the python code, associated files, etc. This is especially true for OS vendors - such as RedHat, Apple and others who will perform legal audits of code to ensure that all contributions are properly licensed and the PSF can properly distribute those changes. > > On the other hand, if the PSF requires additional powers not already > granted (to all recipients) in the license, what are those additional > powers and why does the PSF need them for a contribution? > It's already granted in the license: but people have to agree to license their changes under that apache 2 license and that the PSF can lawfully redistribute the changes. For an example: look back at Oracle vs Google and the legal battle over things as silly as comments which were copy pasted from elsewhere. Something that stupidly simple can be cause to question the provenance of the code with the distribution. We have already had to fix copyright headers and provide CLA documents to companies finding issues or questioning provenance > -- > \ ?The most common way people give up their power is by thinking | > `\ they don't have any.? ?Alice Walker | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > _______________________________________________ > Python-legal-sig mailing list > Python-legal-sig at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 03:39:13 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:39:13 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Message-ID: Also; as an aside - pythons license history, as well as the allowance that other companies may distribute the python code: even in closed source form requires a paper trail where veracity can be proved On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Jesse Noller writes: > >> On May 1, 2013, at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik 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? > >> [?] larger changes (just like code patches) require the ability for >> redistribution and licensing downstream to other vendors such as >> ActiveState, RedHat and others. > > The Apache License ? the free-software license which the PSF ask for on > contributions to the Python code base ? allows every recipient, > including the PSF, to do this already. > > If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, why > does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? > > On the other hand, if the PSF requires additional powers not already > granted (to all recipients) in the license, what are those additional > powers and why does the PSF need them for a contribution? > > -- > \ ?The most common way people give up their power is by thinking | > `\ they don't have any.? ?Alice Walker | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > _______________________________________________ > Python-legal-sig mailing list > Python-legal-sig at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig From fuzzyman at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 17:14:22 2013 From: fuzzyman at gmail.com (Michael Foord) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:14:22 +0300 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] [Python-ideas] Contributing to Python core via an intermediary In-Reply-To: <520B5CA7.2050405@egenix.com> References:

<7wsiyhaui2.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20130811120308.6f536907@fsol> <7w1u5z6cjq.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <20130812103110.4155d3ea@pitrou.net> <7wtxitarud.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <520B47E8.3020501@egenix.com> <20130814111759.6b55cc36@pitrou.net> <520B5CA7.2050405@egenix.com> Message-ID: On 14 August 2013 13:32, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > On 14.08.2013 11:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:03:36 +0200, > > "M.-A. Lemburg" a ?crit : > >> > >> Note that this does not necessarily mean that all code going into > >> the core has to be subject to a CLA. It is still possible to > >> integrate code which has a license compatible with the > >> PSF license, but in general, we'd like to avoid the extra work > >> of having to check and verify such licenses. > > > > Is it possible to "check and verify", say, the common form of the > > (ultra-simple) MIT license (*)? That would make it a safe starting point > > for contributors. > > > > (*) http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > The "check and verify" step would have to be done on a case-by-case > basis. We would need to make sure that the the copyright holders > mentioned in the license are in fact the copyright holders, > How is that different from a CLA? Does a CLA mean the PSF has no duty to check the signer had the rights to code they donated? (To say yes is to claim that a CLA provides a defence against a breach-of-copyright claim from a third party, so I'm sceptical. It demonstrates honourable intent - but so does receiving the code under an open source license.) > check that the license doesn't prevent the PSF from modifying > the PSF license to address future concerns and also pay close > attention to things like patents. > So a standard open source license could be vetted so that this stage does not need to done case-by-case. Which was the original suggestion. Michael > > The CLA makes this a lot easier for the PSF and everyone > invovled, which is why we have it :-) > > But we're getting off-topic here. Such things should be discussed > on the python-legal list: > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig > > -- > Marc-Andre Lemburg > eGenix.com > > Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Aug 14 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/ > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben+python at benfinney.id.au Thu Aug 15 04:08:10 2013 From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:08:10 +1000 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Jesse Noller writes: > On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > > > 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? > > Python is distributed to end users in packaged form, on operating > systems and elsewhere. Wikipedia is distributed online and is done via > mass collaboration. Both of those are true for both Python and Wikipedia: * Python is distributed online via mass collaboration, in the VCS repository. What salient legal difference is there from Wikipedia's mass collaboration and online distribution? * Wikipedia is distributed to end users in packaged form (for one example of many, the WikiReader device). Indeed, this is a primary purpose of Wikipedia, to produce an encyclopedia useful for packaging and distribution under free-software terms to those without reliable internet access. What salient difference is there from Python's distribution to end users in packaged form? I'm not asking for you to defend what Wikimedia Foundation have decided. But I am asking for why the PSF requires additional agreement documents, when other free-software organisations, performing what seem to be legally-equivalent collaborations and redistributions, do not require these additional agreements. If there's a salient difference, I have yet to have it presented. If there's not a salient difference, I don't see why the CLA is required. > It would be next to impossible to prove legal provenance of the > changes on Wikipedia. This means distributing the text in any > commercial form is legally questionable. Yet it is explicitly permitted by the license. The license was carefully chosen to encourage commercial redistribution of Wikipedia, and people do it. > For python: we have to (as the PSF) be able to prove that the people > committing the code have rights to that code. Okay. That's not a reason to ask for a licensing agreement from the contributor, though. It's reason to ask for an affirmation of the provenance of the contribution. No additional powers required. > For example, if I, working for Foo, submit code to core, I must have a > CLA in place from that company stating from the company and myself > that I have the legal rights to submit that code and it is OK for the > PSF to redistribute that code. Why is this a special agreement with the PSF, though? The PSF already has full permission to do everything the Apache License allows. > > If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, > > why does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? > > The special agreement document is the contributor agreement which > companies, employees, and individuals sign to agree to license the > changes under the Apache 2 license. I would be happy to sign such a document, asserting the work is licensed to all recipients under the Apache License version 2. It says nothing about any special arrangement with PSF. -- \ ?Ocean, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a | `\ world made for man ? who has no gills.? ?Ambrose Bierce, _The | _o__) Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 04:15:42 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Message-ID: <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Jesse Noller writes: > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> Python is distributed to end users in packaged form, on operating >> systems and elsewhere. Wikipedia is distributed online and is done via >> mass collaboration. > > Both of those are true for both Python and Wikipedia: > > * Python is distributed online via mass collaboration, in the VCS > repository. > > What salient legal difference is there from Wikipedia's mass > collaboration and online distribution? > > * Wikipedia is distributed to end users in packaged form (for one > example of many, the WikiReader device). Indeed, this is a primary > purpose of Wikipedia, to produce an encyclopedia useful for packaging > and distribution under free-software terms to those without reliable > internet access. > > What salient difference is there from Python's distribution to end > users in packaged form? Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. > > I'm not asking for you to defend what Wikimedia Foundation have decided. > > But I am asking for why the PSF requires additional agreement documents, > when other free-software organisations, performing what seem to be > legally-equivalent collaborations and redistributions, do not require > these additional agreements. > > If there's a salient difference, I have yet to have it presented. If > there's not a salient difference, I don't see why the CLA is required. > >> It would be next to impossible to prove legal provenance of the >> changes on Wikipedia. This means distributing the text in any >> commercial form is legally questionable. > > Yet it is explicitly permitted by the license. The license was carefully > chosen to encourage commercial redistribution of Wikipedia, and people > do it. > >> For python: we have to (as the PSF) be able to prove that the people >> committing the code have rights to that code. > > Okay. That's not a reason to ask for a licensing agreement from the > contributor, though. It's reason to ask for an affirmation of the > provenance of the contribution. No additional powers required. > >> For example, if I, working for Foo, submit code to core, I must have a >> CLA in place from that company stating from the company and myself >> that I have the legal rights to submit that code and it is OK for the >> PSF to redistribute that code. > > Why is this a special agreement with the PSF, though? The PSF already > has full permission to do everything the Apache License allows. > >>> If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, >>> why does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? >> >> The special agreement document is the contributor agreement which >> companies, employees, and individuals sign to agree to license the >> changes under the Apache 2 license. > > I would be happy to sign such a document, asserting the work is licensed > to all recipients under the Apache License version 2. It says nothing > about any special arrangement with PSF. > > -- > \ ?Ocean, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a | > `\ world made for man ? who has no gills.? ?Ambrose Bierce, _The | > _o__) Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | > Ben Finney > > _______________________________________________ > Python-legal-sig mailing list > Python-legal-sig at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 04:26:48 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04EDB9E3-597D-46D4-BD0A-7C772C638186@gmail.com> See also the complete history: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.5/license/ License in and license out would require lots of legal time and money to approach beOpen/cnri and others to flatten the stack On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > >> Jesse Noller writes: >> >>> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Python is distributed to end users in packaged form, on operating >>> systems and elsewhere. Wikipedia is distributed online and is done via >>> mass collaboration. >> >> Both of those are true for both Python and Wikipedia: >> >> * Python is distributed online via mass collaboration, in the VCS >> repository. >> >> What salient legal difference is there from Wikipedia's mass >> collaboration and online distribution? >> >> * Wikipedia is distributed to end users in packaged form (for one >> example of many, the WikiReader device). Indeed, this is a primary >> purpose of Wikipedia, to produce an encyclopedia useful for packaging >> and distribution under free-software terms to those without reliable >> internet access. >> >> What salient difference is there from Python's distribution to end >> users in packaged form? > > Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. > > All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. > >> >> I'm not asking for you to defend what Wikimedia Foundation have decided. >> >> But I am asking for why the PSF requires additional agreement documents, >> when other free-software organisations, performing what seem to be >> legally-equivalent collaborations and redistributions, do not require >> these additional agreements. >> >> If there's a salient difference, I have yet to have it presented. If >> there's not a salient difference, I don't see why the CLA is required. >> >>> It would be next to impossible to prove legal provenance of the >>> changes on Wikipedia. This means distributing the text in any >>> commercial form is legally questionable. >> >> Yet it is explicitly permitted by the license. The license was carefully >> chosen to encourage commercial redistribution of Wikipedia, and people >> do it. >> >>> For python: we have to (as the PSF) be able to prove that the people >>> committing the code have rights to that code. >> >> Okay. That's not a reason to ask for a licensing agreement from the >> contributor, though. It's reason to ask for an affirmation of the >> provenance of the contribution. No additional powers required. >> >>> For example, if I, working for Foo, submit code to core, I must have a >>> CLA in place from that company stating from the company and myself >>> that I have the legal rights to submit that code and it is OK for the >>> PSF to redistribute that code. >> >> Why is this a special agreement with the PSF, though? The PSF already >> has full permission to do everything the Apache License allows. >> >>>> If that permission is already in the license on the contribution, >>>> why does the PSF require it again in a special agreement document? >>> >>> The special agreement document is the contributor agreement which >>> companies, employees, and individuals sign to agree to license the >>> changes under the Apache 2 license. >> >> I would be happy to sign such a document, asserting the work is licensed >> to all recipients under the Apache License version 2. It says nothing >> about any special arrangement with PSF. >> >> -- >> \ ?Ocean, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a | >> `\ world made for man ? who has no gills.? ?Ambrose Bierce, _The | >> _o__) Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | >> Ben Finney >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-legal-sig mailing list >> Python-legal-sig at python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Aug 15 10:50:08 2013 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:50:08 +0200 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Wikipedia / CLA References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Message-ID: <20130815105008.749ceea8@fsol> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:53:59 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > Jesse Noller writes: > > > On May 1, 2013, at 8:44 AM, anatoly techtonik 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. Regards Antoine. From solipsis at pitrou.net Thu Aug 15 11:06:52 2013 From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:06:52 +0200 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500 Jesse Noller wrote: > > Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. > > All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. What do you call "non free implementations"? The CPython *source code* is free and has to stay that way; it is just not copyleft, therefore not necessarily distributed with binaries. Regards Antoine. From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 13:45:01 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> Message-ID: On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500 > Jesse Noller wrote: >> >> Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. >> >> All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. > > What do you call "non free implementations"? The CPython *source code* > is free and has to stay that way; it is just not copyleft, therefore > not necessarily distributed with binaries. > > Regards > > Antoine. > I mean that there are many vendors which package the cpython runtime and code in closed, non free packages and runtimes. This includes enthought, ActiveState and others. Having a clear paper trail of copyright assignment and provenance means if they get sued for X and they come to us about it, we have to be able to prove we (therefore they) have the rights to distribute X > > _______________________________________________ > Python-legal-sig mailing list > Python-legal-sig at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig From fontana at sharpeleven.org Thu Aug 15 17:10:58 2013 From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:10:58 -0400 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> Message-ID: <20130815151057.GB7637@sharpeleven.org> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:45:01AM -0500, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500 > > Jesse Noller wrote: > >> > >> Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. > >> > >> All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. > > > > What do you call "non free implementations"? The CPython *source code* > > is free and has to stay that way; it is just not copyleft, therefore > > not necessarily distributed with binaries. > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > > > I mean that there are many vendors which package the cpython runtime and code in closed, non free packages and runtimes. This includes enthought, ActiveState and others. Having a clear paper trail of copyright assignment and provenance means if they get sued for X and they come to us about it, we have to be able to prove we (therefore they) have the rights to distribute X The PSF CLA is not a copyright assignment, though perhaps that doesn't affect the point you're making. However I don't think your point makes a lot of sense -- why would packaging CPython in nonfree packages/runtimes give rise to a greater likelihood of a lawsuit against a company such as ActiveState, and/or a greater need for a 'paper trail'? BTW since you invoked Red Hat as one of the PSF's downstream commercial vendors upthread, I just want to note for the record (IAAL at Red Hat) that Red Hat has no need whatsoever for the PSF to maintain its CLA policy. - RF From jnoller at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 17:35:02 2013 From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:35:02 -0500 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? In-Reply-To: <20130815151057.GB7637@sharpeleven.org> References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> <20130815151057.GB7637@sharpeleven.org> Message-ID: <1D8D6B54-7EA3-49D7-97E0-25DA7DB5BFBD@gmail.com> On Aug 15, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:45:01AM -0500, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500 >>> Jesse Noller wrote: >>>> >>>> Allowance for redistribution, even under non free licenses. Additionally, you have to account for the Python license itself which is actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. >>>> >>>> All if this means we also need to worry about copyright assignment for legal redistribution by the PSF, OS vendors, non free implementations, etc. >>> >>> What do you call "non free implementations"? The CPython *source code* >>> is free and has to stay that way; it is just not copyleft, therefore >>> not necessarily distributed with binaries. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Antoine. >> >> I mean that there are many vendors which package the cpython runtime and code in closed, non free packages and runtimes. This includes enthought, ActiveState and others. Having a clear paper trail of copyright assignment and provenance means if they get sued for X and they come to us about it, we have to be able to prove we (therefore they) have the rights to distribute X > > The PSF CLA is not a copyright assignment, though perhaps that doesn't > affect the point you're making. However I don't think your point makes > a lot of sense -- why would packaging CPython in nonfree > packages/runtimes give rise to a greater likelihood of a lawsuit > against a company such as ActiveState, and/or a greater need for a > 'paper trail'? > > BTW since you invoked Red Hat as one of the PSF's downstream > commercial vendors upthread, I just want to note for the record (IAAL > at Red Hat) that Red Hat has no need whatsoever for the PSF to > maintain its CLA policy. > > - RF > > I poked Van. I don't want to play Internet lawyer. > > _______________________________________________ > Python-legal-sig mailing list > Python-legal-sig at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig From ben+python at benfinney.id.au Fri Aug 16 04:53:44 2013 From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 12:53:44 +1000 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7w4naquz0n.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Jesse Noller writes: > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > >> > >>> 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? > [?] you have to account for the Python license itself which is > actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc. That's an interesting point. Nick Coghlan and I discussed this at PyCon AU 2013. There are many wrinkles in the ancient license terms. But I don't see how that leads to the PSF's assertion that a CLA is required. Can we have a clear explanation of what the relevance of the ancient (but, of course, still legally-binding) license terms are to the discussion of why a CLA is needed? -- \ ?All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more | `\ robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument | _o__) than others.? ?Douglas Adams | Ben Finney From ben+python at benfinney.id.au Fri Aug 16 05:09:24 2013 From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:09:24 +1000 Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation? References: <35F44A43-24D5-4C70-A9C8-F4BC7B6F7460@gmail.com> <7w1u5vai54.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <134442AA-33F8-415E-B57D-D42389FCC469@gmail.com> <7w4narbt9x.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <12DA7FCC-F752-4DE2-BE76-AE01AA383F40@gmail.com> <20130815110652.1bfe5ca5@fsol> Message-ID: <7wwqnmtjq3.fsf@benfinney.id.au> Antoine Pitrou writes: > What do you call "non free implementations"? The CPython *source code* > is free and has to stay that way; it is just not copyleft, therefore > not necessarily distributed with binaries. Non-copyleft also means it can be redistributed as non-free software. For example, a bundled Python interpreter in a non-free application; or a Python dialect redistributed as a non-free program. I would agree that any such implementation is a ?non-free implementation?. -- \ ?Program testing can be a very effective way to show the | `\ presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing | _o__) their absence.? ?Edsger W. Dijkstra | Ben Finney