[Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation?

[anatoly techtonik]

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.