[Python-legal-sig] Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation?

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:45:01AM -0500, Jesse Noller wrote:
> 
> 
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:15:42 -0500
> > Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> 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