Le Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:19:21 +1000, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> a écrit :
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.
Ben, I respect your distrust of the CLA's terms (or of CLAs in general), but does that mean you wouldn't contribute the python-daemon implementation under a CLA? AFAICT it has no chance of landing in the official source tree if you aren't willing to sign a CLA for it.
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.
I suppose that depends on whoever reviews your patch :-) Regards Antoine.