On Sun, Apr 22, 2012, Mats Wichmann wrote: > > I guess I have to feel free to disagree. For my case, my big company > has been involved in open source for a long time, we have a clear well > documented process for contributions to projects, and though that > process has gotten more complicated over the years since I did it, I > have gone through it for Python, following all the necessary steps, and > it's all approved: the people who need to know, do know, the bases are > all covered, with a clear understanding that the contributions are all > that, no ownership interest would be retained by us. If there's a new > "contributor agreement", it does mean a lawyer has to look at it in > excruciating detail. And as a deal unique to PSF, that means the chance > of issues. This question is not supposed to be be about me, as noted, so > maybe the impression I have of "if used to work, now it's going to get > more complicated" looms bigger. But I do know we've had problems with > both the Ubuntu contributor agreement, and the Fedora one, to name two > that actually affected me. There are projects that get by without "you > must sign this assignment of rights" type contributor agreements, not > sure why Python can't be one of them.
Maybe because they don't have Python's history of problems with licensing. IIRC, you were around for the Python 1.6/2.0 mess that precipitated the creation of the PSF. For anyone who doesn't remember, the following will give some flavor: http://www.python.org/download/releases/1.6/license_faq/ -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ import antigravity _______________________________________________ pydotorg-www mailing list pydotorg-www@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
