[Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure

[anatoly techtonik]

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.