Re: [Python-Dev] Making it possible to accept contributions without CLA (was: My thinking about the development process)
On 9 Dec 2014 08:47, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote: On Dec 09, 2014, at 09:31 AM, Ben Finney wrote: Rather, I'm asking what, specifically, necessitates this situation. What would need to change, for the PSF to accept contributions to the Python copyrighted works, without requiring the contributor to do anything but license the work under Apache 2.0 license? My understanding is that the PSF needs the ability to relicense the contribution under the standard PSF license, and it is the contributor agreement that gives the PSF the legal right to do this. This matches my understanding as well. The problem is that the PSF licence itself isn't suitable as licence in, and changing the licence out could have a broad ripple effect on downstream consumers (especially since the early history means just change the outgoing license to the Apache License isn't an available option, at least as far as I am aware). A more restricted CLA that limited the PSF's outgoing licence choices to OSI approved open source licenses might address some of the concerns without causing problems elsewhere, but the combination of being both interested in core development and having a philosophical or personal objection to signing the CLA seems to be genuinely rare. Cheers, Nick. Many organizations, both for- and non-profit have this legal requirement, and there are many avenues for satisfying these needs, mostly based on different legal and business interpretations. In the scheme of such things, and IMHO, the PSF CLA is quite reasonable and lightweight, both in what it requires a contributor to provide, and in the value, rights, and guarantees it extends to the contributor. Cheers, -Barry ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Making it possible to accept contributions without CLA (was: My thinking about the development process)
On Dec 09, 2014, at 07:42 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: A more restricted CLA that limited the PSF's outgoing licence choices to OSI approved open source licenses might address some of the concerns without causing problems elsewhere, but the combination of being both interested in core development and having a philosophical or personal objection to signing the CLA seems to be genuinely rare. The CLA does explicitly say Contributor understands and agrees that PSF shall have the irrevocable and perpetual right to make and distribute copies of any Contribution, as well as to create and distribute collective works and derivative works of any Contribution, under the Initial License or under any other open source license approved by a unanimous vote of the PSF board. So while not explicitly limited to an OSI approved license, it must still be open source, at least in the view of the entire (unanimous) PSF board. OSI approved would probably be the least controversial definition of open source that the PSF could adopt. Cheers, -Barry pgp7O9fxtjjZZ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Python-Dev] Making it possible to accept contributions without CLA (was: My thinking about the development process)
Eric Snow ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com writes: There's no real way around this, is there? […] the CLA part is pretty unavoidable. The PSF presently madates that any contributor to Python sign URL:http://legacy.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/contributor-agreement.pdf the “Contributor Agreement”. This is a unilateral grant from the contributor to the PSF, and is unequal because the PSF does not grant these same powers to the recipients of Python. I raise this, not to start another disagreement about whether this is desirable; I understand that many within the PSF regard it as an unfortunate barrier to entry, even if it is necessary. Rather, I'm asking what, specifically, necessitates this situation. What would need to change, for the PSF to accept contributions to the Python copyrighted works, without requiring the contributor to do anything but license the work under Apache 2.0 license? Is it specific code within the Python code base which somehow creates this need? How much, and how would the PSF view work to re-implement that code for contribution under Apache 2.0 license? Is it some other dependency? What, specifically; and what can be done to remove that dependency? My goal is to see the PSF reach a state where the licensing situation is an equal-footing “inbound = outbound” like most free software projects; where the PSF can happily receive from a contributor only the exact same license the PSF grants to any recipient of Python. For that to happen, we need to know the specific barriers to such a goal. What are they? -- \ “A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me | `\ at kick boxing.” —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] Making it possible to accept contributions without CLA (was: My thinking about the development process)
On Dec 09, 2014, at 09:31 AM, Ben Finney wrote: Rather, I'm asking what, specifically, necessitates this situation. What would need to change, for the PSF to accept contributions to the Python copyrighted works, without requiring the contributor to do anything but license the work under Apache 2.0 license? My understanding is that the PSF needs the ability to relicense the contribution under the standard PSF license, and it is the contributor agreement that gives the PSF the legal right to do this. Many organizations, both for- and non-profit have this legal requirement, and there are many avenues for satisfying these needs, mostly based on different legal and business interpretations. In the scheme of such things, and IMHO, the PSF CLA is quite reasonable and lightweight, both in what it requires a contributor to provide, and in the value, rights, and guarantees it extends to the contributor. Cheers, -Barry ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
