[Distutils] Distutils at the PyCon 2004 sprints

[Tim Peters]

[Phillip J. Eby]
> You know, it's really amazing how many more messages have been posted
> here on the subject of what CVS repository 'setuptools' should live
> in, than have commented on the design or implementation of setuptools
> itself.  :)

But I understand CVS <0.9 wink>.

> ...
> Doesn't Python CVS access require a similar "contributor thingie",

In theory, but nobody has signed one yet (there's no form to sign yet, just
a proposed form that doesn't actually make sense for various reasons --
which is why it hasn't moved beyond "proposed" status).

> for the same reasons as Zope?

That's a different question, and as a Zope employee I'm not allowed to
speculate about Zope Corp policies <heh>.  The PSF wants a form for reasons
that escape me now -- probably to ensure that there's no actionable question
about the PSF's right to slap its own license on contributions, plus paying
homage to various cover-your-ass legalistic superstitions "because everyone
else does".

> ...
> Fred and I are both zope.org CVS committers, and for the sprint I
> sort of assumed Fred and/or Jim would have "contributor thingies" on
> hand for people to sign if needed.  :)

You should really find out in advance whether contributors are willing to
sign those.  For example, if I weren't already a Zope employee, I wouldn't
sign it on the spot-- it's too complicated for me to sign without paying a
lawyer to review it first (I don't even know what half of it really means).

BTW, if this code is intended to be released under a PSF license eventually,
it probably won't help to have people sign something putting it under the
ZPL first.  Vice versa if it's intended to be released under the ZPL.
SpamBayes moved to SourceForge partly because they didn't ask us to sign
pages of licensing agreements just to use a CVS repository.