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

[Ben Finney]

Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> writes:

> >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> 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