Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
Can we get this discussion off python-dev? It's not going to change, and this is not the forum to express your disagreement. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Steven D'Aprano writes: > >> On 13/04/13 20:30, Ben Finney wrote: >> > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: >> >> A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute >> >> to the distribution >> > >> > As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that >> > characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to >> > contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as >> > you describe. >> >> Could you explain, briefly, why you cannot sign the CLA? > > Because software freedom in a work is undermined when any recipient is > granted special legal privilege in the work. > > As it currently stands, the Contributor Agreement grants special legal > privilege in the work (the power to unilaterally re-license the work) to > the PSF. > > By “special privilege”, I mean that this power is granted specially to > some but denied to all other recipients of the work. Hence to sign the > Contributor Agreement as it currently stands is to undermine software > freedom in the resulting work. > > -- > \“Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what | > `\mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
Ben Finney writes: > As it currently stands, the Contributor Agreement grants special > legal privilege in the work (the power to unilaterally re-license > the work) to the PSF. "I hate to disagree, Sir, but that turns out to be incorrect."[0] First, it's not the Contributor Agreement, it's the approved Initial Licenses that grant the power to sublicense (the technical term in US law for the kind of "re-licensing" being discussed here). The AFL does so explicitly. I'm not sure about the Apache license, but it does so at least implicitly. (That's the main feature of a "permissive license".) I agree the wording is a little vague, but in fact the Contributor Agreement simply affirms that the Initial License has been granted and that it provides for sublicensing. It then *takes away* power from the PSF, by requiring it to use an open source license, which the Initial Licenses (AFL and Apache) do not. Second, although in theory the PSF might change its license, at the moment the current PSF license also (implicitly) permits some form of "re-licensing" because it requires only preservation of copyright notice (clause 2) and a list of changes (clause 3). In particular it implicitly grants the right to use a proprietary license for works derived from the contribution, which is denied to the PSF under the Contributor Agreement.[1] I think that is very unlikely to change. So the PSF Contributor Agreement grants no special privileges to the PSF not available in practice to any Python user. Footnotes: [0] IANAL, but I'm on pretty firm ground on this one. [1] Technically speaking, that proprietary license may not apply to the portion of code copied from Python. In practice, to the extent that proprietary original code is mixed with PSF Python, it can effectively prevent copying any part of the derived work. Cf. the infamous "non-permission" statement on O'Reilly's _The X Window System_ series. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
On 4/15/2013 12:15 AM, Ben Finney wrote: Steven D'Aprano writes: On 13/04/13 20:30, Ben Finney wrote: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute to the distribution As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as you describe. Could you explain, briefly, why you cannot sign the CLA? Because software freedom in a work is undermined when any recipient is granted special legal privilege in the work. As it currently stands, the Contributor Agreement grants special legal privilege in the work (the power to unilaterally re-license the work) to the PSF. By “special privilege”, I mean that this power is granted specially to some but denied to all other recipients of the work. Hence to sign the Contributor Agreement as it currently stands is to undermine software freedom in the resulting work. Easily curable by granting that right to all recipients of the contributions you make to PSF, no? Of course, the contributor's agreement has no particular need to include such a clause, but you can include it in a separately published version of the contributions, to keep freedom free... ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
Steven D'Aprano writes: > On 13/04/13 20:30, Ben Finney wrote: > > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > >> A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute > >> to the distribution > > > > As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that > > characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to > > contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as > > you describe. > > Could you explain, briefly, why you cannot sign the CLA? Because software freedom in a work is undermined when any recipient is granted special legal privilege in the work. As it currently stands, the Contributor Agreement grants special legal privilege in the work (the power to unilaterally re-license the work) to the PSF. By “special privilege”, I mean that this power is granted specially to some but denied to all other recipients of the work. Hence to sign the Contributor Agreement as it currently stands is to undermine software freedom in the resulting work. -- \“Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what | `\mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall | _o__) | Ben Finney ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
Ben Finney writes: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > > > Mark Lawrence writes: > > > > > People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to > > > contribute, wouldn't this requirement make the situation > > > worse? > > > > A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute > > to the distribution > > As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that > characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to > contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as > you describe. > > Rather, I leave the matter of contribution undecided, Whatever. In fact, the consequence of your failure to sign the CLA is that your code doesn't get distributed with any of the current Python releases, is that correct? Back in context, I don't see how placing a reminder to sign the CLA on the page makes your decision at that instant harder. I suppose it might deter you from submitting code that by policy shouldn't be included in the distribution, but might be useful to third parties. Whether such deterrence is a good thing or a bad thing would depend on how likely it was to be independently invented by some who is willing to contribute code, and whether you would try to enforce your copyright in the event that it resembled your code (in which case there would be an obvious case for infringement, with the burden of proof on the individual who is willing to sign the CLA). (By the way, what is your problem of conscience with the PSF CLA? Are you afraid that the PSF's obligation to use an "open source license" is not enforceable? You don't like the choice of Initial Licenses? Something else?) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA
On 13/04/13 20:30, Ben Finney wrote: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: Mark Lawrence writes: > People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute, > wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse? A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute to the distribution As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as you describe. Could you explain, briefly, why you cannot sign the CLA? -- Steven ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA (was: Introducing Electronic Contributor Agreements)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > >> Mark Lawrence writes: >> >> > People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute, >> > wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse? >> >> A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute to >> the distribution > > As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that characterisation > is far from accurate: I would very much like to contribute to the Python > distribution, and so have not decided as you describe. > > Rather, I leave the matter of contribution undecided, while advocating > (when opportunity arises) against the CLA. > > The decision that the current terms are unacceptable does not entail a > decision not to contribute. Stephen said that it's a choice not to contribute and not that one wouldn't _like_ to contribute if the CLA wasn't there. Those are both distinctive choices to make. A desire to help is independent of whether you are willing to take the necessary step of signing the CLA in order to change that desire into an actual act of contributing (which is obviously fine; if you have moral issues with the CLA no one will hold it against you, we just can't legally risk accepting code without it). -Brett > > (aside: good sigmonster, have a treat.) > > -- > \ Lucifer: “Just sign the Contract, sir, and the Piano is yours.” | > `\ Ray: “Sheesh! This is long! Mind if I sign it now and read it | > _o__)later?” —http://www.achewood.com/ | > Ben Finney > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Deciding against the CLA (was: Introducing Electronic Contributor Agreements)
"Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Mark Lawrence writes: > > > People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute, > > wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse? > > A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute to > the distribution As someone who cannot in good faith sign the CLA, that characterisation is far from accurate: I would very much like to contribute to the Python distribution, and so have not decided as you describe. Rather, I leave the matter of contribution undecided, while advocating (when opportunity arises) against the CLA. The decision that the current terms are unacceptable does not entail a decision not to contribute. (aside: good sigmonster, have a treat.) -- \ Lucifer: “Just sign the Contract, sir, and the Piano is yours.” | `\ Ray: “Sheesh! This is long! Mind if I sign it now and read it | _o__)later?” —http://www.achewood.com/ | Ben Finney ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
