At 02:09 AM 2/12/05 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
Isn't the PSF somewhere in between? I mean, in theory we are supposed to
be tracking stuff, but in practice there's no contributor agreement for
CVS committers ala Zope Corp.'s approach.
That is not true, see
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib.html
We certainly don't have forms from all contributors, yet, but we
are working on it.
So in some sense right now, Python depends largely on the implied promise
of its contributors to license their contributions under the same terms
as Python. ISTM that if somebody's lawyer is worried about whether
Python contains pseudo-public domain code, they should be downright
horrified by the absence of a paper trail on the rest. But IANAM (I Am
Not A Marketer), either. :)
And indeed, they are horrified. Right now, we can tell them we are
working on it - so I would like to see that any change that we make
to improve the PSF's legal standing. Adding code which was put into
the "public domain" makes it worse (atleast in the specific case -
we are clearly allowed to do what we do with the current md5 code;
for the newly-proposed code, it is not so clear, even if you think
it is likely we would win in court).
Thanks for the clarifications.
_______________________________________________
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
