From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 09:55:28 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:55:28 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure
In-Reply-To: <85k3did324.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
References: <CAPkN8xLW9EteDvJ4XDhFFMa4RCozhGuqHUxSY3uAduxkbFb2zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <85k3did324.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xJc8hfE=Mb5dT8dvjxD1EDx-LZyPqnzNgnabV==NrFKfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I now think that if PSF can not coordinate work to remove legal
>> obstacles in proper way (and not forcing peers to pursue and kill
>> those who don't obey)
>
> I say this as someone who also finds the PSF's CLA unacceptable:
>
> Anatoly, your points are not going to persuade until you stop couching
> them in this ridiculous hyperbole.

Ridiculous hyperbole is my way to replace swearing in my emotional
outbursts, and yes, I do accept that I need help to formulate them in a
proper manner if that helps, because I am completely out of oral skills
when talking about such ridiculous things as U.S. freedom of speech and
overly outdated ill-practiced copyright laws that kill people that try to
change them for better.

I am mad every time I have to type about CLA and stuff, because it
seems that nobody understands what I mean and I am just shouting in a
room full of silent and careless robots with drawn smiles on their faces.


Ok. Now I am past the point of catharsis. So, the problem can be resolved
if the opposition would accept that it deals with a hard, dumb and stubborn
opponent (me) and try to convince it. If that opponent is convinced, the
environment will again become green, peaceful and politically correct.

The way that was attempted before - "go read these books" - didn't help,
because like everyone else I don't have time for that and it's a pity. So, if
PSF could do this favor for me (even though it is generally unpleasant
task for an ordinary man who just wants to live his life), it will also do a
great favor for community and will make another good step in
self-identification of itself and its role in the complicated quest of
protecting and advancing Python and supporting its community.

From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Fri Feb  7 12:17:38 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:17:38 +1100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure
References: <CAPkN8xLW9EteDvJ4XDhFFMa4RCozhGuqHUxSY3uAduxkbFb2zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <85k3did324.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <CAPkN8xJc8hfE=Mb5dT8dvjxD1EDx-LZyPqnzNgnabV==NrFKfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85sirvcgtp.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:

> So, the problem can be resolved if the opposition would accept that it
> deals with a hard, dumb and stubborn opponent (me) and try to convince
> it.

They are not obliged to deal with you, I think. (Nor are they obliged to
deal with me, of course). So, another way to resolve the problem is to
cease dealing with people who are ranting without learning the facts.

The more you behave as someone unreasonable and unwilling to learn, the
more likely IMO you will make it that people cease dealing with you.

> The way that was attempted before - "go read these books" - didn't help,
> because like everyone else I don't have time for that and it's a pity.

That is a pity. However, you can't refuse to learn the background of the
situation, and simultaneously claim that the people you are trying to
convince must provide a remedial education.

As you point out, we all have limited time for this. Either you choose
to put in the time to come up with a fact-based position, and to express
it in a reasoned manner, or not. Railing against volunteers isn't going
to help.

-- 
 \     ?As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we |
  `\      should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours; and |
_o__)     this we should do freely and generously.? ?Benjamin Franklin |
Ben Finney


From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 15:46:38 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:46:38 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure
In-Reply-To: <85sirvcgtp.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
References: <CAPkN8xLW9EteDvJ4XDhFFMa4RCozhGuqHUxSY3uAduxkbFb2zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <85k3did324.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <CAPkN8xJc8hfE=Mb5dT8dvjxD1EDx-LZyPqnzNgnabV==NrFKfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85sirvcgtp.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+c-rGTMDfPu2cHrj1PC3mN0vX+QtubGy5kMy-uWR6ncQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So, the problem can be resolved if the opposition would accept that it
>> deals with a hard, dumb and stubborn opponent (me) and try to convince
>> it.
>
> They are not obliged to deal with you, I think. (Nor are they obliged to
> deal with me, of course). So, another way to resolve the problem is to
> cease dealing with people who are ranting without learning the facts.
>
> The more you behave as someone unreasonable and unwilling to learn, the
> more likely IMO you will make it that people cease dealing with you.

Looking at what nothing really happens I am afraid that you're right.

But I am not trying to solve the problem just for me. I am trying to solve
problem for people who are like me don't want to know all the details. They
just need to know what is the problem with PSF with accepting patches
that people attach to issues?

I basically beg for help, because I have no chance to read and understand
all these complicated humanitarian topics. Maybe I've missed something
short and concise that I've should paid attention to, but people should feel
free to repeat the link once more. I really may have missed something.

Instead of books I expected something like:
"well, there is an excerpt that I've made for my clients one day, it is much
less reading with all relevant references and explanations that you may find
more useful. I think it is the best explanation so far and given all
the problems
of modern copyright law I really don't think it can be made better, but you
may try".

If there is no such thing, I'd at least expect an offiical link "for the
explanation why CLA is needed, refer to [this] book" on this page
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/

You say that people just ignore me, but is that professional? PSF is the
legal body to protect legal interests of Python and its contributors and you
say that they have the right to ignore and ban me. Yes, it is good to throw
in pizzas to support good spirits in those hacking on various conferences,
but wouldn't it be a better overall spending of funds to sponsor legal research
on matter that really piss off people from contributing to Python? I still can
afford buying myself a pizza, but I feel sad, because I can not pay a lawyer.

>> The way that was attempted before - "go read these books" - didn't help,
>> because like everyone else I don't have time for that and it's a pity.
>
> That is a pity. However, you can't refuse to learn the background of the
> situation, and simultaneously claim that the people you are trying to
> convince must provide a remedial education.

I am willing to learn, but I don't want it to be an exclusive education just
for me. I want everybody to be aware of the background, so that we could
discuss the situation. For that to work this knowledge should be accessible
for people, meaning that the entrypoint should be open for everyone.

For the starter, I'd like to request to add link with this background
information with official PSF statement why CLA is here and why it is
needed to this page:

http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/

It doesn't hurt anybody, it is constructive step to resolve the conflict that
and frees PSF from paranoid speculation from my side about conspiracy
to choose security by obscurity solution to legal problems with open
collaboration and U.S. copyright law behind CLA.

> As you point out, we all have limited time for this. Either you choose
> to put in the time to come up with a fact-based position, and to express
> it in a reasoned manner, or not. Railing against volunteers isn't going
> to help.

Ok. To make at least some little step in right direction I started a wiki
page to collect facts.

https://wiki.python.org/moin/CLA

But I really lost at this point.


To continue my arguments I need to get an official explanation from PSF
for its action to put up the CLA. Explanation with prooflinks and facts that
can be checked and clarified further. What is that I tried to get out, but
failed. Without official statements there won't be any progress, because
the final answer so far always was "I am not a lawyer, so you better
consult them".


Do you have a better plan of actions?

I admit that in general I hate lawyers as a class and this passes through
my rhetoric, but I agree to behave more or less normal if somebody who is
a lawyer is willing to help with these matters and can openly discuss
how can we handle the process. I'd like to see this resulted in a public
tutorial with accent on points that are the causes of the effects that some
of us see as harmful to community. Maybe we've will come to a point that
there a conflict in what is good for community and what is good for Python.
It will help to keep more people involved if each tutorial doesn't take more
time than a single lightning talk, so that you could educate yourself in the
break behind a cup of coffee.

From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 15:58:02 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:58:02 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <CAD+XWwr4HN7LR3fWTp=Kzw81KUPU=Dr41S2pFvSpwbPyCaUuGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD+XWwr4HN7LR3fWTp=Kzw81KUPU=Dr41S2pFvSpwbPyCaUuGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xLLT27WPsjOZm2PZH0bqFufFxYjcD3wT1=AC6c3XQKMzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Brian Curtin <brian at python.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:11 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The previous round of debates ended up in August 2013 with no satisfying
>> answer.
>> I'd like this question to be worked out on PyCon 2014 if it is
>> impossible to do on
>> this mailing list.
>
>
> Feel free to propose an open space at PyCon if you want.
> https://us.pycon.org/2014/community/openspaces/

I want, but there is no chance I will ever be able to get to PyCon anymore,
and I don't see who can formalize and defend my position, so its all futile.

From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 17:48:07 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:48:07 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xJSy=Qv=zgieHZf6_W8RDG6iK5eso1wMJGX1WXUaed9yQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Correct me if I define the wrong point of conflict, but Wikipedia
>> content is illegal,
>
> That's an incoherent statement: actions, not content, are what
> constitute illegality.
>
> What action, by what party, are you contending is illegal? What law does
> it violate, in what jurisdiction?

I don't know. It is all fear, uncertainty and despair around Python CLA that
makes me think that if I didn't sign up the CLA when I edited the Wikipedia
page then my edit is illegal.

I see no difference between edit of Wikipedia page online and sending
a patch to Python documentation. Is there any?

>> because its contributors didn't sign the CLA, so its CC-BY-SA 3.0
>> claims are invalid.
>
> This implies you're talking about the Python developers redistributing
> Wikipedia content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 combined with Python code under PSF
> license.
>
> Is that what you're saying is ?illegal?? What law is violated, and how?

I don't know. I've just tried to summarize the problem.

I not a lawyer and I am surprised to know that if I want to share things freely
on the internet I should subscribe some papers. It should it be the other way.

From techtonik at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 17:58:39 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:58:39 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-29 18:59, Ben Finney wrote:
>>
>> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Correct me if I define the wrong point of conflict, but Wikipedia
>>> content is illegal,
>>
>>
>> That's an incoherent statement: actions, not content, are what
>> constitute illegality.
>>
>> What action, by what party, are you contending is illegal? What law does
>> it violate, in what jurisdiction?
>>
>>> because its contributors didn't sign the CLA, so its CC-BY-SA 3.0
>>> claims are invalid.
>>
>>
>> This implies you're talking about the Python developers redistributing
>> Wikipedia content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 combined with Python code under PSF
>> license.
>>
>> Is that what you're saying is ?illegal?? What law is violated, and how?
>
>
> No. In the previous iteration of this thread he has asserted that
> Wikipedia's change of license from the GFDL to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 is the same
> as the relicensing scenario that motivates PSF's CLA requirement. He seems
> to be asserting here that if the PSF stands by its reasoning for its CLA, it
> must also publicly denounce Wikipedia for doing its license change without
> CLAs in place.

Sometimes I feel like it will be better to reset the state and start again,
because I can hardly remember the twisted turns of the thread, but you have
some valid anchors. Let me try to formulate this again.

Wikipedia is all o.k. with re-licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0, because GFDL
allowed that escape. The question is different. Why Wikipedia doesn't reqiure
any CLA and all edits become CC-BY-SA, and for Python you are obliged to
sign the CLA?

If that is only to allow relicensing then why not say that explicitly
in the next
version of PSF license and abandon CLA at all (following Wikipedia practice)?

From fontana at sharpeleven.org  Fri Feb  7 18:31:05 2014
From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:31:05 -0500
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:58:39 +0300
anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> Wikipedia is all o.k. with re-licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0, because
> GFDL allowed that escape. The question is different. Why Wikipedia
> doesn't reqiure any CLA and all edits become CC-BY-SA, and for Python
> you are obliged to sign the CLA?

Hi,
This seems like a reasonable question to me. It is true that I
can contribute edits to Wikipedia relatively friction-free
without having to sign any legal agreement -- there is a sort of
lightweight 'by submitting this edit you are licensing it under
CC BY-SA 3.0' if I recall correctly. 

Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA? 

I am somewhat interested in this topic for a few reasons. In my day job
I'm a lawyer at Red Hat who advises on open source-related issues (a
Red Hat engineer pointed me to this list when it was established). Once
in a blue moon a question about the PSF CLA has come up from engineers
wishing to contribute upstream to Python. The thing that still bothers
me is the statement Jesse Noller, who I understand is on the PSF Board,
made at:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/2013-May/000011.html

"Documentation is shipped with Python, it contains code examples/etc
which are relevant to the code itself and therefore larger changes
(just like code patches) require the ability for redistribution and
licensing downstream to other vendors such as ActiveState, RedHat and
others."

This itself is not a justification for a CLA, but what really bothered
me about it (as I noted at the time) was that it implied that Red Hat in
some sense needed the PSF to have a CLA for commercial reasons. This is
*completely* untrue. If Red Hat has any cognizable opinion about the
PSF CLA it is that it's a pointless annoyance. 

 - RF 

From jnoller at gmail.com  Fri Feb  7 18:45:38 2014
From: jnoller at gmail.com (Jesse Noller)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:45:38 -0600
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
Message-ID: <CACQrdO=8BncSmHyqbx0E7dT4nQ4btrFWgAuxrair0A7fKGc70A@mail.gmail.com>

Rather then debate this - I shot it directly to the board and van lindberg

Much of the CLA stuff is the sordid licensing history of Python and
all of it's documentation, copyrights, etc. But I'll let lawyers
debate it.

And yes, I'm on the board, and yes, we have been audited - lack of
copyright assignments in code files, missing license headers, and CLAs
have been asked for by vendors in the 21+ years for python. Anyway, I
paged a lawyer.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Richard Fontana
<fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:58:39 +0300
> anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia is all o.k. with re-licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0, because
>> GFDL allowed that escape. The question is different. Why Wikipedia
>> doesn't reqiure any CLA and all edits become CC-BY-SA, and for Python
>> you are obliged to sign the CLA?
>
> Hi,
> This seems like a reasonable question to me. It is true that I
> can contribute edits to Wikipedia relatively friction-free
> without having to sign any legal agreement -- there is a sort of
> lightweight 'by submitting this edit you are licensing it under
> CC BY-SA 3.0' if I recall correctly.
>
> Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA?
>
> I am somewhat interested in this topic for a few reasons. In my day job
> I'm a lawyer at Red Hat who advises on open source-related issues (a
> Red Hat engineer pointed me to this list when it was established). Once
> in a blue moon a question about the PSF CLA has come up from engineers
> wishing to contribute upstream to Python. The thing that still bothers
> me is the statement Jesse Noller, who I understand is on the PSF Board,
> made at:
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/2013-May/000011.html
>
> "Documentation is shipped with Python, it contains code examples/etc
> which are relevant to the code itself and therefore larger changes
> (just like code patches) require the ability for redistribution and
> licensing downstream to other vendors such as ActiveState, RedHat and
> others."
>
> This itself is not a justification for a CLA, but what really bothered
> me about it (as I noted at the time) was that it implied that Red Hat in
> some sense needed the PSF to have a CLA for commercial reasons. This is
> *completely* untrue. If Red Hat has any cognizable opinion about the
> PSF CLA it is that it's a pointless annoyance.
>
>  - RF
> _______________________________________________
> Python-legal-sig mailing list
> Python-legal-sig at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig

From solipsis at pitrou.net  Fri Feb  7 18:46:22 2014
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:46:22 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
Message-ID: <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:31:05 -0500
Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 
> Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA? 

I cannot answer for the PSF, despite being a PSF member myself.
However, one reasonable rationale for the CLA is that it allows further
relicensing, e.g. to a further version of the "PSF license".

Regards

Antoine.



From fontana at sharpeleven.org  Fri Feb  7 18:54:51 2014
From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:54:51 -0500
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <CACQrdO=8BncSmHyqbx0E7dT4nQ4btrFWgAuxrair0A7fKGc70A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
 <CACQrdO=8BncSmHyqbx0E7dT4nQ4btrFWgAuxrair0A7fKGc70A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140207125451.1631aba5@riley.home>

I realize now maybe I misinterpreted your original message. It can be
read in two different ways, so apologies. The mentioning of Red Hat was
confusing to me (and shaped my reading of it) and stuck with me.

 - RF



On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:45:38 -0600
Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> wrote:

> Rather then debate this - I shot it directly to the board and van
> lindberg
> 
> Much of the CLA stuff is the sordid licensing history of Python and
> all of it's documentation, copyrights, etc. But I'll let lawyers
> debate it.
> 
> And yes, I'm on the board, and yes, we have been audited - lack of
> copyright assignments in code files, missing license headers, and CLAs
> have been asked for by vendors in the 21+ years for python. Anyway, I
> paged a lawyer.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Richard Fontana
> <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:58:39 +0300
> > anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Wikipedia is all o.k. with re-licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0, because
> >> GFDL allowed that escape. The question is different. Why Wikipedia
> >> doesn't reqiure any CLA and all edits become CC-BY-SA, and for
> >> Python you are obliged to sign the CLA?
> >
> > Hi,
> > This seems like a reasonable question to me. It is true that I
> > can contribute edits to Wikipedia relatively friction-free
> > without having to sign any legal agreement -- there is a sort of
> > lightweight 'by submitting this edit you are licensing it under
> > CC BY-SA 3.0' if I recall correctly.
> >
> > Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA?
> >
> > I am somewhat interested in this topic for a few reasons. In my day
> > job I'm a lawyer at Red Hat who advises on open source-related
> > issues (a Red Hat engineer pointed me to this list when it was
> > established). Once in a blue moon a question about the PSF CLA has
> > come up from engineers wishing to contribute upstream to Python.
> > The thing that still bothers me is the statement Jesse Noller, who
> > I understand is on the PSF Board, made at:
> > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/2013-May/000011.html
> >
> > "Documentation is shipped with Python, it contains code examples/etc
> > which are relevant to the code itself and therefore larger changes
> > (just like code patches) require the ability for redistribution and
> > licensing downstream to other vendors such as ActiveState, RedHat
> > and others."
> >
> > This itself is not a justification for a CLA, but what really
> > bothered me about it (as I noted at the time) was that it implied
> > that Red Hat in some sense needed the PSF to have a CLA for
> > commercial reasons. This is *completely* untrue. If Red Hat has any
> > cognizable opinion about the PSF CLA it is that it's a pointless
> > annoyance.
> >
> >  - RF
> > _______________________________________________
> > Python-legal-sig mailing list
> > Python-legal-sig at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig
> _______________________________________________
> Python-legal-sig mailing list
> Python-legal-sig at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-legal-sig


From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Sat Feb  8 00:30:02 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:30:02 +1100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
	edits for Python documentation?
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home> <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>
Message-ID: <85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:31:05 -0500
> Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA? 
>
> I cannot answer for the PSF, despite being a PSF member myself.
> However, one reasonable rationale for the CLA is that it allows further
> relicensing, e.g. to a further version of the "PSF license".

It may be that there's no better rationale for the PSF's CLA requirement
than ?to allow a change of license?.

However, that rationale implies either that Wikimedia foundation could
not legally change the license terms for Wikipedia; or, alternatively,
that Wikipedia ? a project with a large number of contributors over a
long history and a huge body of content ? did this without a CLA, but
the PSF is not able to do the same with Python.

So a rationale is being sought that will hold up better than merely ?to
allow a change of license?; or, an explanation of what is different
about Python that the PSF requires a CLA for contributing to Python.

But there may be a better rationale for retaining the CLA. Either way,
I'd very much like to see an official answer from the PSF for this.

-- 
 \             ?I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or |
  `\    anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.? ?Albert |
_o__)                                    Einstein, unsent letter, 1955 |
Ben Finney


From mal at egenix.com  Sat Feb  8 00:35:39 2014
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:35:39 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>	<85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>	<CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
Message-ID: <52F56DCB.1070904@egenix.com>

On 07.02.2014 18:31, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA? 

Some resources on the topic:

https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq?highlight=%28contribution%29#Contributing_Code_to_Python
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/

The main point in having contribution forms is to avoid the
proliferation of licenses on the Python license stack, while at the
same time enabling the PSF to defend the Python IP, should we ever get
into the situation of having to do this.

Unlike a copyright assignment, which e.g. the FSF requires for
contributions, the PSF contrib forms only request a (special) license.
The copyright stays with the contributor - which is important for a
lot of our contributors.

A side issue which was also solved using the contrib forms was that
of receiving a patent grant for any patents owned by the contributor,
which may apply to the contribution.

Overall, the barrier to entry is very low. Perhaps not as low as for
Wikipedia, but certainly a lot lower than for e.g. FSF projects.

Some people may still not like contrib forms, but they work great
for most people who want to contribute and we rarely have issues with
them.

That said, if you have a alternative, which works even better while
implementing the same features, please do post it here.

And no, CC BY-SA is not a better alternative. The Python license
is a BSDish license, i.e. does not enforce a share-alike requirement
(and we like that).

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Feb 08 2014)
>>> 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/
________________________________________________________________________
2014-01-28: Released eGenix pyOpenSSL 0.13.3 ...  http://egenix.com/go52

::::: 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 Feb  8 00:45:38 2014
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:45:38 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home> <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>
 <85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <20140208004538.1f30bb43@fsol>

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:30:02 +1100
Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:31:05 -0500
> > Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Does the PSF not have a public justification for its CLA? 
> >
> > I cannot answer for the PSF, despite being a PSF member myself.
> > However, one reasonable rationale for the CLA is that it allows further
> > relicensing, e.g. to a further version of the "PSF license".
> 
> It may be that there's no better rationale for the PSF's CLA requirement
> than ?to allow a change of license?.
> 
> However, that rationale implies either that Wikimedia foundation could
> not legally change the license terms for Wikipedia

Well, could it? Has this been seriously studied on legal grounds, or
did everybody just let the Wikimedia foundation get away with it?

Regards

Antoine.



From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Sat Feb  8 02:17:32 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:17:32 +1100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
	edits for Python documentation?
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home> <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>
 <85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20140208004538.1f30bb43@fsol>
Message-ID: <85k3d6csib.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > It may be that there's no better rationale for the PSF's CLA
> > requirement than ?to allow a change of license?.
> > 
> > However, that rationale implies either that Wikimedia foundation
> > could not legally change the license terms for Wikipedia
>
> Well, could it? Has this been seriously studied on legal grounds, or
> did everybody just let the Wikimedia foundation get away with it?

I don't know. But the fact that they *have* done it means either that
Wikimedia foundation are special somehow, or PSF are special somehow, or
something else explains the difference.

In any of those cases, the proposed rationale is not persuasive until
the difference between the cases is explained.

-- 
 \     ?It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to |
  `\    persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.? ?Carl |
_o__)                                                            Sagan |
Ben Finney


From fontana at sharpeleven.org  Sat Feb  8 02:34:02 2014
From: fontana at sharpeleven.org (Richard Fontana)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:34:02 -0500
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <85k3d6csib.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home> <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>
 <85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20140208004538.1f30bb43@fsol>
 <85k3d6csib.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <20140207203402.5a26ea75@riley.home>

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:17:32 +1100
Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:

> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> writes:
> 
> > Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > > It may be that there's no better rationale for the PSF's CLA
> > > requirement than ?to allow a change of license?.
> > > 
> > > However, that rationale implies either that Wikimedia foundation
> > > could not legally change the license terms for Wikipedia
> >
> > Well, could it? Has this been seriously studied on legal grounds, or
> > did everybody just let the Wikimedia foundation get away with it?
> 
> I don't know. But the fact that they *have* done it means either that
> Wikimedia foundation are special somehow, or PSF are special somehow,
> or something else explains the difference.

If I'm not misremembering the Wikipedia license change was achieved
through FSF update of the GFDL. So probably not too relevant.

- RF



From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Sat Feb  8 03:08:24 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:08:24 +1100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
	edits for Python documentation?
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home> <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>
 <85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20140208004538.1f30bb43@fsol>
 <85k3d6csib.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <20140207203402.5a26ea75@riley.home>
Message-ID: <85fvnucq5j.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> writes:

> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > [?] the fact that they *have* done it [change the license on the
> > entirety of Wikipedia, without any CLA] means either that Wikimedia
> > foundation are special somehow, or PSF are special somehow, or
> > something else explains the difference.
>
> If I'm not misremembering the Wikipedia license change was achieved
> through FSF update of the GFDL. So probably not too relevant.

You're right <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html>.
Version 1.3 was created specifically to allow Wikipedia to change its
license.

By virtue of the *grant* of license from contributors to the Wikimedia
Foundation, the ?or any later version? clause allows Wikimedia to
redistribute those contributions under new FDL versions, because all
contributors can be presumed to have already granted that permission.

The license granted to PSF by contributors to Python, on the other hand,
does not have any existing clause permitting automatically changing the
license. So PSF does not have automatic permission from contributors to
change the license of Python.

So this should mean that comparisons to Wikipedia's change from FDL is
not relevant to discussions of allowing a change of the Python license.

-- 
 \         ?If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all |
  `\    others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking |
_o__)                          power called an idea? ?Thomas Jefferson |
Ben Finney


From mal at egenix.com  Sat Feb  8 15:01:51 2014
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:01:51 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <85fvnucq5j.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>	<85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>	<CAPkN8xKSkj8UsLgCxCh-3Wdn23Cau4V6uqsyNdhUJ4han0L0kQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20140207123105.6665a16d@riley.home>
 <20140207184622.1024b80a@fsol>	<85ob2icxhh.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <20140208004538.1f30bb43@fsol>	<85k3d6csib.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
 <20140207203402.5a26ea75@riley.home> <85fvnucq5j.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
Message-ID: <52F638CF.8030200@egenix.com>

On 08.02.2014 03:08, Ben Finney wrote:
> Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> writes:
> 
>> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>>> [?] the fact that they *have* done it [change the license on the
>>> entirety of Wikipedia, without any CLA] means either that Wikimedia
>>> foundation are special somehow, or PSF are special somehow, or
>>> something else explains the difference.
>>
>> If I'm not misremembering the Wikipedia license change was achieved
>> through FSF update of the GFDL. So probably not too relevant.
> 
> You're right <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html>.
> Version 1.3 was created specifically to allow Wikipedia to change its
> license.
> 
> By virtue of the *grant* of license from contributors to the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the ?or any later version? clause allows Wikimedia to
> redistribute those contributions under new FDL versions, because all
> contributors can be presumed to have already granted that permission.
> 
> The license granted to PSF by contributors to Python, on the other hand,
> does not have any existing clause permitting automatically changing the
> license. So PSF does not have automatic permission from contributors to
> change the license of Python.

That's correct, but instead of having to relicense Python and
thus adding yet another license on top of the Python license stack,
the PSF gets permission to distribute the contribution under any
open source license the board chooses.

This is the most important detail of the contrib forms. We simply
cannot run into problems such as the Wikipedia relicensing needing
changes to the original license.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Feb 08 2014)
>>> 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/
________________________________________________________________________
2014-01-28: Released eGenix pyOpenSSL 0.13.3 ...  http://egenix.com/go52

::::: 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/