INADA Naoki writes:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
Contributor Agreement '''''''''''''''''''''
Contributions to translated documentation will be requested to sign the Python Contributor Agreement (CLA):
I'm not sure about this requirement, but I'm not a lawyer. I guess that in case of doubt, it's better to require it?
You have to ask the PSF lawyer about that, but I would say it's a good idea. We *do* need an appropriate license from each contributor IMO (IANAL). If we require it now and decide it's unneeded, at worst a few people with mild objections will sign a contributor license they didn't really have to. Since they retain copyright, any harm done should be rare and small. (If they really cared about copyleft etc, they'd be working in a GNU project.) If we don't do it now, somebody will likely need to identify contributions and chase down CLAs later, which is yuck. I've done that, I hope nobody ever has to do it again!
To publish / redistribute translations under d.p.o, we need to get agreement from all translators.
Maybe, we can use Github pull request (with template) to confirm member agreed how translations are used, instead of CLA.
IMO, the current web-based CLA is the right template to use. DRY - if the lawyers change the wording (unlikely, but possible) or the licenses (also unlikely but possible), we get that automatically. Of course, hook it into the GitHub process, since that's how you're going to collect contributions. Of course if the lawyers decide to use one or more documentation- oriented licenses for contributions, we'd need a different template. Unlikely but possible, but this would be PSF Legal-driven so again, gotta talk to them. Steve "IANAL but I've been through license wars and CLA collection drives"