CC0 for Python Documentation
Adding python-legal-sig@python.org to CC. Please, follow up on python-ideas. CC0 is a way to free public works from legal burden: https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 Here is the reasoning why people do this: https://creativecommons.org/tag/cc0 At first I thought about CC-BY, but then realized that no authorship is respected. As you may see here - http://docs.python.org/3/copyright.html - PSF is the sole owner of the docs with no reference to the work of people who have contributed. No wonder that there is not much motivation to collaborate. So, given all the above I'd like to propose using CC0 for Python documentation. Benefits: - you don't need to ask PSF for permissions and clarification of your rights - you can still count and credit contributions regardless of is there is copyright signature of the owner or not - this also makes it clear that docs are from community for community, you can fork and enhance - you don't have to sign exclusive CLA to make edits to documentation - you don't have to supply huge license file if you copy/paste relevant pieces from the docs Now the questions that needs to be answered. PSF is made to protect Python. How sitting on top of Python documentation copyright helps it to do so? What are consequences if Python Documentation is released with CC0 license? Do you think it will hurt Python? If yes, then how? Do you think that current CLA is impediment for contributing patches to documentation? Do you think that using CC0 will increase contributions and tools for working with Python docs? Do you think that current situation is better? Do you think that CC-BY is better? Do you think that CC-BY-SA is better? It looks like a poll. Maybe PSF should create one? -- anatoly t.
On 22.11.2013 06:22, anatoly techtonik wrote:
Adding python-legal-sig@python.org to CC. Please, follow up on python-ideas.
Please don't cross post.
The documentation is distributed under the same license terms as Python itself. Credits are included in the Misc/ACKS file and the patch history is both on the tracker and the Mercurial log. We don't treat documentation as separate from the code itself. Both go together hand in hand. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 22 2013)
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
This information is not accessible. Nobody knows where this Misc/ACKS file is located and nobody will go look for it. On the other hand, clicking copyright string is an easy action. Mercurial log also only makes sense if it is analysed http://www.red-bean.com/svnproject/contribulyzer/
We don't treat documentation as separate from the code itself. Both go together hand in hand.
That's good only for reference part. All other parts are largely outdated, incomplete, lack tutorials and examples. That happens, because docs are written by coders the same way as code, and not by users for users. -- anatoly t.
On 22.11.2013 15:10, anatoly techtonik wrote:
There are plenty alternatives around in form of books, websites with tutorials, videos, podcasts, Q&As, then there are the cookbook, the topic guides, blogs, etc. if you don't like to use the official documentation. https://wiki.python.org/moin/Documentation I'm sure some of those don't require to sign a contrib agreement, so you can contribute there. Or you can setup your own website for this purpose. Plenty of options, I'd say, for someone who wants to contribute something. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 22 2013)
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:10:14 +0100 "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
Anatoly has a point, though: why does the doc claim Python is "copyright PSF" while that is not true - and the LICENSE file doesn't make any such claim? (uh, I would prefer the followup to have been on the legal SIG - python-ideas is pretty much off-topic for this :-() Regards Antoine.
On 11/22/2013 10:02 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
False. It lists 4 legal entities as the owner of the combined software and documentation. "Python and this documentation is: Copyright © 2001-2013 Python Software Foundation. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000 BeOpen.com. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1995-2000 Corporation for National Research Initiatives. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. All rights reserved." Each has copyright on the contributions made during the listed periods. PSF only owns contributions since 2001, much as it wishes otherwise. I believe that the previous sponsors have be asked but have declined to assigned their copyrights to PSF. If they were to, http://docs.python.org/3/license.html could be simplified a bit.
Anatoly misstated the copyright claim, certainly with respect to 'Python'. Both files say the same thing, with the same dates. The license file just gives more details as to versions. Perhaps he was confused by the web page copyright notice at the bottom right of *every* page, not just the Copyright page. © Copyright 1990-2013, Python Software Foundation. I believe that listing just PSF is ok because the formatted web pages are derived works using .rst and Sphinx, starting with 2.6. In any case, the only people with a right to complain are the other three underlying copyright holders. The beginning date should perhaps be 1991 instead of 1990, though there might also be a good reason for that related to public notices Guido posted before the first release. But I see no reason for *us* to fuss about that. -- Terry Jan Reedy
Right. The thread is moved into discussing of "rightfulness of copyright notice on documentation page", because it is simple, easy and more interesting to discuss as everyone has some kind of different opinion about that. It also doesn't require too much time and effort to think about. What I really would like to see is the discussion of pure idea of Python documentation in CC0, is it good or bad. Current "vendor lock-in" is very much related, but separate question that indeed belongs to legal SIG. Here I expected to see opinions from all people why CC0 is bad or good. So far I haven't see any counter argument against, except one that I may vague interpret both as: 1. it works, so no reason to touch it, or spend time on or even discuss alternatives 2. python doc is for python code, so it's ok that you should sign the CLA to edit them As for the first, I still would like to discuss all points addressed - that's why it is python-ideas, where there ordinary people can talk about things they like and don't like. As for the second. I don't think it is ok, and that's why I wrote the proposal. I made my arguments, and I'd want to put them on scales. -- anatoly t. On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On 11/23/2013 6:18 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What I really would like to see is the discussion of pure idea of Python documentation in CC0, is it good or bad.
Since the docs are partially owned by 4 different entities, such discussion would be pointless.
Here I expected to see opinions from all people why CC0 is bad or good.
This list is for improving future Python versions. It is not a Creative Commons discussion group. [the current situation]
1. it works,
yes
so no reason to touch it, or spend time on or even discuss alternatives
and pointless for the reason given above.
2. python doc is for python code, so it's ok that you should sign the CLA to edit them
Yes. Many patches affect both code and docs. Code includes docs in the form of docstrings. There is intentional duplication between docstrings in the code and entries in the docs. They are not separable.
python-list is for discussing changes to Python the language and the CPython implementation and distribution thereof. Other things that people like or not are off-topic. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On 22.11.2013 06:22, anatoly techtonik wrote:
Adding python-legal-sig@python.org to CC. Please, follow up on python-ideas.
Please don't cross post.
The documentation is distributed under the same license terms as Python itself. Credits are included in the Misc/ACKS file and the patch history is both on the tracker and the Mercurial log. We don't treat documentation as separate from the code itself. Both go together hand in hand. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 22 2013)
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
This information is not accessible. Nobody knows where this Misc/ACKS file is located and nobody will go look for it. On the other hand, clicking copyright string is an easy action. Mercurial log also only makes sense if it is analysed http://www.red-bean.com/svnproject/contribulyzer/
We don't treat documentation as separate from the code itself. Both go together hand in hand.
That's good only for reference part. All other parts are largely outdated, incomplete, lack tutorials and examples. That happens, because docs are written by coders the same way as code, and not by users for users. -- anatoly t.
On 22.11.2013 15:10, anatoly techtonik wrote:
There are plenty alternatives around in form of books, websites with tutorials, videos, podcasts, Q&As, then there are the cookbook, the topic guides, blogs, etc. if you don't like to use the official documentation. https://wiki.python.org/moin/Documentation I'm sure some of those don't require to sign a contrib agreement, so you can contribute there. Or you can setup your own website for this purpose. Plenty of options, I'd say, for someone who wants to contribute something. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Nov 22 2013)
::::: Try our mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:10:14 +0100 "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
Anatoly has a point, though: why does the doc claim Python is "copyright PSF" while that is not true - and the LICENSE file doesn't make any such claim? (uh, I would prefer the followup to have been on the legal SIG - python-ideas is pretty much off-topic for this :-() Regards Antoine.
On 11/22/2013 10:02 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
False. It lists 4 legal entities as the owner of the combined software and documentation. "Python and this documentation is: Copyright © 2001-2013 Python Software Foundation. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000 BeOpen.com. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1995-2000 Corporation for National Research Initiatives. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1991-1995 Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. All rights reserved." Each has copyright on the contributions made during the listed periods. PSF only owns contributions since 2001, much as it wishes otherwise. I believe that the previous sponsors have be asked but have declined to assigned their copyrights to PSF. If they were to, http://docs.python.org/3/license.html could be simplified a bit.
Anatoly misstated the copyright claim, certainly with respect to 'Python'. Both files say the same thing, with the same dates. The license file just gives more details as to versions. Perhaps he was confused by the web page copyright notice at the bottom right of *every* page, not just the Copyright page. © Copyright 1990-2013, Python Software Foundation. I believe that listing just PSF is ok because the formatted web pages are derived works using .rst and Sphinx, starting with 2.6. In any case, the only people with a right to complain are the other three underlying copyright holders. The beginning date should perhaps be 1991 instead of 1990, though there might also be a good reason for that related to public notices Guido posted before the first release. But I see no reason for *us* to fuss about that. -- Terry Jan Reedy
Right. The thread is moved into discussing of "rightfulness of copyright notice on documentation page", because it is simple, easy and more interesting to discuss as everyone has some kind of different opinion about that. It also doesn't require too much time and effort to think about. What I really would like to see is the discussion of pure idea of Python documentation in CC0, is it good or bad. Current "vendor lock-in" is very much related, but separate question that indeed belongs to legal SIG. Here I expected to see opinions from all people why CC0 is bad or good. So far I haven't see any counter argument against, except one that I may vague interpret both as: 1. it works, so no reason to touch it, or spend time on or even discuss alternatives 2. python doc is for python code, so it's ok that you should sign the CLA to edit them As for the first, I still would like to discuss all points addressed - that's why it is python-ideas, where there ordinary people can talk about things they like and don't like. As for the second. I don't think it is ok, and that's why I wrote the proposal. I made my arguments, and I'd want to put them on scales. -- anatoly t. On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On 11/23/2013 6:18 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
What I really would like to see is the discussion of pure idea of Python documentation in CC0, is it good or bad.
Since the docs are partially owned by 4 different entities, such discussion would be pointless.
Here I expected to see opinions from all people why CC0 is bad or good.
This list is for improving future Python versions. It is not a Creative Commons discussion group. [the current situation]
1. it works,
yes
so no reason to touch it, or spend time on or even discuss alternatives
and pointless for the reason given above.
2. python doc is for python code, so it's ok that you should sign the CLA to edit them
Yes. Many patches affect both code and docs. Code includes docs in the form of docstrings. There is intentional duplication between docstrings in the code and entries in the docs. They are not separable.
python-list is for discussing changes to Python the language and the CPython implementation and distribution thereof. Other things that people like or not are off-topic. -- Terry Jan Reedy
participants (4)
-
anatoly techtonik -
Antoine Pitrou -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Terry Reedy