Mark Lawrence writes:
People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute, wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse?
A failure to sign the CLA is already a decision not to contribute to the distribution, no matter how noisy they are on the tracker and list. I think that pretty much any upload is potential content for inclusion in Python. For example, uploading a log of an interactive session reproducing a bug could easily evolve into contribution of a doctest. Since the proposed page only triggers on uploads, I think we're in "yes, we really do want this person's CLA" territory. The procedure is actually rather cool. As Eli says, the tough part is finding your user name, but OpenID or browser memory makes that reasonably close to trivial for many people. It's true that people upload "one-line documentation patches," and these don't require a CLA under even the most paranoid interpretation of US law. The FSF's guideline is 16 lines, I believe. However, the FSF's guideline also says those 16 lines are lifetime cumulative (per copyrighted work, but we're only talking about one, Python). In my experience (with a different project, so FWIW) somebody who goes to the trouble of uploading a doc typo patch is likely to be a repeat offender, whereas "drive-by" contributors who just need that one feature so their web2.0 app works as desired are often going to be in 16-line territory anyway. This argument doesn't catch 100% of those who might be deterred by the popup, but it's definitely enough to make the popup worthwhile. IANAL-but-I-like-a-good-license-flamewar-as-much-as-the-next-guy-ly y'rs,