From florian at apolloner.eu  Tue Jan  7 10:25:58 2014
From: florian at apolloner.eu (Florian Apolloner)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:25:58 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Including parts of weakref in Django
Message-ID: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu>

Hi,

I am planing to backport weakref.WeakMethod to Django:
https://github.com/apollo13/django/blob/7a6c28977bf258b27c5bc2a19417f913c541e2dd/django/dispatch/weakref_backports.py

What I don't know is how the license information for that file should
look like and if we do have the permission to include it like this.
Could you please tell me how the license information should look like?

Thanks & best regards,
Florian

P.S.: Please CC me, I am not on the list

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/attachments/20140107/ded6a83a/attachment.sig>

From mal at egenix.com  Thu Jan  9 14:36:10 2014
From: mal at egenix.com (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:36:10 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Including parts of weakref in Django
In-Reply-To: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu>
References: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu>
Message-ID: <52CEA5CA.9010507@egenix.com>

On 07.01.2014 10:25, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am planing to backport weakref.WeakMethod to Django: 
> https://github.com/apollo13/django/blob/7a6c28977bf258b27c5bc2a19417f913c541e2dd/django/dispatch/weakref_backports.py
>
>  What I don't know is how the license information for that file should look like and if we do
> have the permission to include it like this. Could you please tell me how the license
> information should look like?

The standard Python license applies, so simply follow the rules
set forth in that license:

http://docs.python.org/license.html

You essentially just need to retain all copyright notices, put the
license file into the distribution and include a list of changes.

> Thanks & best regards, Florian
> 
> P.S.: Please CC me, I am not on the list

I would prefer if the Reply-To list header were removed from this list.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Jan 09 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/
________________________________________________________________________

::::: 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 florian at apolloner.eu  Sat Jan 11 18:16:42 2014
From: florian at apolloner.eu (Florian Apolloner)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:16:42 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Including parts of weakref in Django
In-Reply-To: <52CEA5CA.9010507@egenix.com>
References: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu>
	<52CEA5CA.9010507@egenix.com>
Message-ID: <CAObiVe-Xy-d30mRNot_P1otD34xJp37RcaAA_V1NcH1Y9cYGtQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks,

I'll see what I can come up with :)

Best regards,
Florian

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> On 07.01.2014 10:25, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am planing to backport weakref.WeakMethod to Django:
>> https://github.com/apollo13/django/blob/7a6c28977bf258b27c5bc2a19417f913c541e2dd/django/dispatch/weakref_backports.py
>>
>>  What I don't know is how the license information for that file should look like and if we do
>> have the permission to include it like this. Could you please tell me how the license
>> information should look like?
>
> The standard Python license applies, so simply follow the rules
> set forth in that license:
>
> http://docs.python.org/license.html
>
> You essentially just need to retain all copyright notices, put the
> license file into the distribution and include a list of changes.
>
>> Thanks & best regards, Florian
>>
>> P.S.: Please CC me, I am not on the list
>
> I would prefer if the Reply-To list header were removed from this list.
>
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> eGenix.com
>
> Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Jan 09 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/
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ::::: 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  Mon Jan 13 18:20:18 2014
From: solipsis at pitrou.net (Antoine Pitrou)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:20:18 +0100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Including parts of weakref in Django
References: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu> <52CEA5CA.9010507@egenix.com>
 <CAObiVe-Xy-d30mRNot_P1otD34xJp37RcaAA_V1NcH1Y9cYGtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140113182018.090b6585@fsol>

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:16:42 +0100
Florian Apolloner <florian at apolloner.eu> wrote:
> Thanks,
> 
> I'll see what I can come up with :)

Do note that, as the author of the code in question (the WeakMethod
code), I could allow you to distribute it if abiding by the PSF license
is too complicated.

Regards

Antoine.


> 
> Best regards,
> Florian
> 
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:36 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> > On 07.01.2014 10:25, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am planing to backport weakref.WeakMethod to Django:
> >> https://github.com/apollo13/django/blob/7a6c28977bf258b27c5bc2a19417f913c541e2dd/django/dispatch/weakref_backports.py
> >>
> >>  What I don't know is how the license information for that file should look like and if we do
> >> have the permission to include it like this. Could you please tell me how the license
> >> information should look like?
> >
> > The standard Python license applies, so simply follow the rules
> > set forth in that license:
> >
> > http://docs.python.org/license.html
> >
> > You essentially just need to retain all copyright notices, put the
> > license file into the distribution and include a list of changes.
> >
> >> Thanks & best regards, Florian
> >>
> >> P.S.: Please CC me, I am not on the list
> >
> > I would prefer if the Reply-To list header were removed from this list.
> >
> > --
> > Marc-Andre Lemburg
> > eGenix.com
> >
> > Professional Python Services directly from the Source  (#1, Jan 09 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/
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > ::::: 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 techtonik at gmail.com  Mon Jan 13 20:35:49 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:35:49 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Including parts of weakref in Django
In-Reply-To: <20140113182018.090b6585@fsol>
References: <52CBC826.8010604@apolloner.eu> <52CEA5CA.9010507@egenix.com>
 <CAObiVe-Xy-d30mRNot_P1otD34xJp37RcaAA_V1NcH1Y9cYGtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140113182018.090b6585@fsol>
Message-ID: <CAPkN8x+j9zcykec3x8JCGWLdNKE4hiPeO0Jf6OHZpvZH304Txg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:16:42 +0100
> Florian Apolloner <florian at apolloner.eu> wrote:
>> Thanks,
>>
>> I'll see what I can come up with :)
>
> Do note that, as the author of the code in question (the WeakMethod
> code), I could allow you to distribute it if abiding by the PSF license
> is too complicated.

It is still interesting to know if this will be the case.

Antoine, are you sure that nobody patched your files? These changes
can not be distributed without other authors consent then.

But, actually, if people signed CLA you can ignore the authors completely,
because PSF has the irrevocable and perpetual right to make and distribute
copies of any Contribution under any other open source license approved by a
unanimous vote of the PSF board.

define:unanimous
1. (of two or more people) fully in agreement.

Here is the list of board members http://www.python.org/psf/members/
You need to bribe only two of them. =)
--
anatoly t.

From techtonik at gmail.com  Wed Jan 29 13:11:41 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:11:41 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
	edits for Python documentation?
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>

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.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> 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?

Correct me if I define the wrong point of conflict, but Wikipedia
content is illegal,
because its contributors didn't sign the CLA, so its CC-BY-SA 3.0
claims are invalid.

If Wikipedia is legal, then PSF requirement CLA for documentation edit
can be lifted.


So far python-legal-sig@ advocates neither accept Wikipedia as
illegal, nor do they
want to cancel CLA requirement.


The last argument from the old thread is that Python license stack is
the reason. I don't see problems to choose a different license for new
documentation content, which is also a good question for community
discussion (if PSF is able to organize this).

From techtonik at gmail.com  Wed Jan 29 14:07:23 2014
From: techtonik at gmail.com (anatoly techtonik)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:07:23 +0300
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure (Was: Iterative
	development)
Message-ID: <CAPkN8xLW9EteDvJ4XDhFFMa4RCozhGuqHUxSY3uAduxkbFb2zw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 07:44, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>>
>> Yet another idea that some of you will find strange.
>>
>
> Instead of coming up with ideas, why not sign the contributors' agreement
> and come up with code that people can actually use?

Because PSF lawyers don't want to cooperate with explaining CLA in open
way, and I don't want to sign the papers I don't understand. I''ve made several
attempts to simplify things to understand, from comparing Python docs
contributions to Wikipedia contributions, and by providing alternative "My CLA"
text, but so far I don't even have a list the problems with my
proposals from the
legal part.

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),
with all its connections to such open source proponents as Canonical and
Google, then the only proper way would be to open Kickstarter campaign
with the title "Explain My CLA" that will fund an escape hatch for Python to
get rid of license stack and make the problems of current copyright system
more obvious to the rest of the world. I think that Creative Commons would be
a good party to work on this. I am even willing to participate in a user,
"customer" and "product owner" role, because if I dig too deep into legal
system, I may have become a lawyer myself, and I don't what (as a citizen)
to be a lawyer to understand the documents that I sign.

From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Wed Jan 29 19:59:07 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 05:59:07 +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>
Message-ID: <85ob2ud37o.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

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?

-- 
 \           ?Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep |
  `\                                                alone.? ?anonymous |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney


From ben+python at benfinney.id.au  Wed Jan 29 20:02:27 2014
From: ben+python at benfinney.id.au (Ben Finney)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:02:27 +1100
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Tired of this CLA pressure
References: <CAPkN8xLW9EteDvJ4XDhFFMa4RCozhGuqHUxSY3uAduxkbFb2zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85k3did324.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

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.

-- 
 \           ?We spend the first twelve months of our children's lives |
  `\          teaching them to walk and talk and the next twelve years |
_o__)           telling them to sit down and shut up.? ?Phyllis Diller |
Ben Finney


From brian at python.org  Wed Jan 29 22:24:23 2014
From: brian at python.org (Brian Curtin)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:24:23 -0600
Subject: [Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept
 edits for Python documentation?
In-Reply-To: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPkN8xKH9BA1tBppYt-szY5_Kntkwz6x5Hw60M-qNJErfTMEmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD+XWwr4HN7LR3fWTp=Kzw81KUPU=Dr41S2pFvSpwbPyCaUuGg@mail.gmail.com>

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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-legal-sig/attachments/20140129/c606d9d9/attachment.html>

From robert.kern at gmail.com  Thu Jan 30 14:02:58 2014
From: robert.kern at gmail.com (Robert Kern)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:02:58 +0000
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: <lcdihl$ujg$1@ger.gmane.org>

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.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco