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

[Ben Finney]

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