"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
Ben Finney writes:
Normal people are also those who want to avoid the requirement for reading and signing a legal document assigning special rights to the PSF, just to propose a fix.
Ben, you are welcome to dislike signing CAs, but please stop spreading FUD about the PSF's CA.
My claim is factual, not FUD, and is entailed within the terms of the contributor agreement.
The rights explicitly specified in the CA actually constitute *restrictions* on the PSF compared to the rights granted by the licenses themselves.
The contributor agreement grants to PSF the unilateral power to redistribute the contribution under “any other open source license approved by [the PSF]”, a power not granted to other recipients of the contribution. So yes, it arrogates special rights to the PSF. Does this make the PSF awful? No, of course not. But I can't pretend it is acceptable to grant special terms to one party in the community. Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> writes:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:25:41 +1000 Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Normal people are also those who want to avoid the requirement for reading and signing a legal document assigning special rights to the PSF, just to propose a fix.
I don't think we ask for a CLA when someone submits a 10-line patch.
Not true, at least in my experience. I have been asked to submit a contributor agreement for small patches to the documentation. Since I cannot in good conscience accept the PSF's requirements, they reject such contributions even under an acceptable all-parties-equal license. -- \ “As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely | `\ upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.” —Bertrand | _o__) Russell, _Unpopular Essays_, 1950 | Ben Finney