Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Johan Gill
On 01/07/2010 01:23 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF isn't one of them. The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that then allows us to turn around and redistribute it under a different open source license

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Nick Coghlan
Johan Gill wrote: > Yes, it is the new RLock implementation. > If I understood this correctly, we should make a patch against trunk if > anything should be contributed. Yep. > Do you mean that we wouldn't need the paperwork for backporting the > original patch committed to py3k? Whether or not a

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 14:15, Michael Foord wrote: > (i.e. copyright and ownership are legal terms that don't necessarily mean > anything *practical* in these situations.) OK, fair enough. :-) -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64 __

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Michael Foord
On 07/01/2010 13:11, Lennart Regebro wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 13:23, Nick Coghlan wrote: As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF isn't one of them. The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that then allows us to turn around an

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 13:23, Nick Coghlan wrote: > As Simon pointed out, while some organisations do work that way, the PSF > isn't one of them. > > The PSF only requires that the code be contributed under a license that > then allows us to turn around and redistribute it under a different open >

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Nick Coghlan
Lennart Regebro wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:46, Johan Gill wrote: >> Hi devs, >> the company where I work has done some work on Python, and the question is >> how this work, owned by the company, can be contributed to the community >> properly. Are there any license issues or other pitfalls

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Simon Cross
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > I'm not a license lawyer, but typically your company needs to give the > code to the community. Yes, it means it stops owning it. This is incorrect. The correct information is at http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/. Schiavo Simon _

Re: [Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Lennart Regebro
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:46, Johan Gill wrote: > Hi devs, > the company where I work has done some work on Python, and the question is > how this work, owned by the company, can be contributed to the community > properly. Are there any license issues or other pitfalls we need to think > about? I

[Python-Dev] Backported faster RLock to Python 2.6.

2010-01-07 Thread Johan Gill
Hi devs, the company where I work has done some work on Python, and the question is how this work, owned by the company, can be contributed to the community properly. Are there any license issues or other pitfalls we need to think about? I imagine that other companies have contributed before,