On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Anatoly, and have tried to overlook your general attitude of being somewhat pushy, but this has pushed me over the edge. If you had some questions about the license, you should have asked the PSF or here on python-dev instead of saying that the PSF is not doing a good job. From where I come from you first try to calmly talk to the people who are doing something that you have questions about before calling for their overthrowing.
Considering essentially all of the core developers are PSF members you have just insulted the entire development team by saying they are doing a poor job in shepherding the project they work on in their spare time . Good job. And by the way, some of the core developers also used to be (that's me) or currently are on the board of directors. Well done indeed.
Thanks for taking the time to respond Brett - saves me from saying basically the same thing. Anatoly - try to give other people a little credit for not being complete idiots, OK? A lot of stuff in the world doesn't make much sense from a green field point of view, but is comprehensible once the long and involved history is taken into account. Jumping to the conclusion that people are incompetent idiots just encourages them to ignore your input (since you're clearly not listening to anyone else). As Brett noted, yes, the LICENSE file is complicated, but most people don't bother reading it themselves - they ask what FSF and OSI think of it, and get the answers "BSD style" and "GPL compatible" and are happy with that. The corporate history is such that the PSF probably doesn't have the legal rights to simplify it (we might have some scope to tidy it up, such as splitting it into two files as you suggest, but we would have to spend money to find out for sure, and don't consider that a particularly good use of contributor's funds). As far as the issue of not including the contributor agreement related licenses in the source goes, note that the contributor agreement explicitly provides the PSF with relicensing rights. If you want to dispute the legal effectiveness of that then you'll want to A) be a lawyer or at least consult one and B) take it up with Van Lindbergh, the PSF's lawyer. Normally we don't require contributor agreements for minor patches and other submissions, but given the attitude you have displayed here, I expect we'll make an exception for you (i.e. until you provide evidence of a change of heart by signing a contributor agreement, I'd consider any patches you provide to be on sufficiently legally dubious ground that we aren't in a position to accept them). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia