Hi, little follow-up about this PEP.
Please check with the PSF that this is what we really want. In the past the suggestion has been to **not** use the PSF license with all of its historical baggage but instead use something like Apache. But since IANAL we really should ask the PSF what the best license for new code is.
I checked with the PSF and after a few emails with VanL (thanks), we concluded that we need a "Documentation Contribution Agreement" (they're working on writing it), then we'll *just* have to ensure contributors are understanding and agreeing with it.
I think we should setup a bot like "The Knights Who Say Ni" from PEP 512 [1]_ or The Knight Who Say Ni itself, configured for the "DCLA" what do you think?
It's definitely possible. The bot is designed to be easily customizable from a server hosting, PR hosting, and CLA hosting perspective. Question is whether the DCLA will be managed the same as the CLA, i.e. a flag set on
bugs.python.org?
-Brett
The bot will *only* cover contributions from actual github pull requests, other means of contributions like transifex can be enforced by other means, namely:
- We can write a welcome text like "By contributing to this transifex project I accept the Documentation Contribution Licence Agreement…".
- We can ask contributors to specifically write they accept the licence agreement along witht the translation independently of the way they send us translations. (It even work for paper…).