On Jan 1, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Jesse Noller <jnol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 1, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> We also discussed about the contributor agreement and IIUC: >>> 1) he signed it already 1.5 years ago but apparently it got lost (that >>> wouldn't be too surprising if it really happened); >>> 2) he thinks the current agreement is "invalid" because the PSF doesn't >>> follow the terms and requirements of the linked Apache 2 license (and while >>> he doesn't seem against signing in, that would be quite pointless if it was >>> indeed invalid); >>> 3) he said that an electronic signature like the one at the bottom of >>> http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html should be used >>> instead of printing/scanning/mailing the agreement (this (or some similar >>> suggestion) already came up a few times here). >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Ezio Melotti >> >> All of this is moot; we have a new admin; we are working towards electronic >> signatures, > > That's good news. > >> but it uses the same CLA as before; the terms and licenses are not different. >> If he refuses to sign and send in the current CLA then that's his choice, >> and his contributions will not be included. > > IIUC he's also saying that a CLA doesn't necessarily require to be linked to > one or more external licenses, i.e. you can agree to contribute under the > terms of the CLA alone and that should be enough. The Google individual CLA > seems to do this. > The problem with linking to external licenses is that *in theory* it requires > you (and him) to read, understand, and accept their terms before putting your > signature on the agreement. In practice people are too lazy to do it and/or > they don't care, so the only common problem is that contributors don't know > which one to pick and ask you if you can lend them a coin to flip. > So, unless there's some specific reason preventing it, it should be possible > to simplify our CLA and make it "self-contained" so that contributors can > easily understand what they are signing (IANAL, but it seems to work for > Google). Precisely. None of us are lawyers; the CLA was made by lawyers to be compatible with the Python license "stack" which has its own set of issues. That all said; again, the likelihood of short term alteration of the CLA is a non starter, so he can feel free to take his time to understand why we require contributions to be licensed to the PSF under the listed licenses. However; I've sent this to a real lawyer for his opinion. > >> If he has specific legal concerns about the CLA backed by legal standing, he >> can send them to p...@python.org and we will have legal counsel review them. > > I think the problem (or one of the problems) is that the Apache license > (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php) requires that, among other > things, "You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a > copy of this License; and You must cause any modified files to carry > prominent notices stating that You changed the files". I'm not sure if we > are doing this, if we really are required to do it, and what are the > implications if we don't do it. These are probably questions that a lawyer > should answer (but OTOH contributors should be able to understand it without > being lawyers themselves). > I sent it to a lawyer. Note the CLA was designed by PSF legal counsel, to whom I have sent this thread. > Also note that these issues are somewhat orthogonal. Electronic signatures a > simpler CLA are about improving and simplifying the process, while the issues > with the Apache license could be an actual problem (that might be solved if > the external licenses are removed by the CLA). The combination of the two > issues is probably making him uncomfortable about signing, even if he stated > that we are free to use his patches on the bug tracker as we wish (but we > can't without contribution form -- unless they are trivial). > IOW, from his point of view, he is willing to contribute, but before doing so > he has to sign the contributor form. Since he wants to understand what he is > signing (and this is not an unreasonable request), he also has to read and > understand the linked licenses, and because there are parts of them that are > not yet clear to him, he is reluctant about signing. > (Disclaimer: the views expressed in this and some of the others email I wrote > solely represent my understanding of the issues, and do not necessarily > represent the actual views of anatoly.) If he signed it 1.5 years ago, the CLA has not changed. Ergo, I fail to see what the issue is today. > > Best Regards, > Ezio Melotti
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
