[pydotorg-www] Licensing contributions (Was: Vanished link for AFL v2.1)

[Michael Foord]

On 21/05/2010 11:36, anatoly techtonik wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Michael Foord<mfoord at python.org>  wrote:
>    
>>> Does the sentence that Apache 2.0 explicitly allow re-licensing really
>>> mean that I can drop it or replace with GPL, MIT or put in Public
>>> Domain at all?
>>> Why AFL?
>>> Why MIT or BSD is inappropriate?
>>> What about CC?
>>> Was there some discussion about it?
>>>
>>>        
>> It was decided by the PSF under the advice of their lawyers quite some time
>> ago. Why do you care about this?
>>      
> I was going to dedicate my time to enhance some of pydotorg services.
>    

We have been discussing contributions to Python itself - as far as I 
know we don't have a system in place for licensing contributions to 
pydotorg services, although we probably should.

> I would like to contribute them under the terms of WTFPL license.

Why do you want to control what license you contribute under? No large 
open source project that I am aware of allows that, for sensible reasons 
related to intellectual property protection that have been explained to you.

> From
> the other side it would be nice (but I do not demand it) to borrow
> bugfixes from other contributors back, because I will save time for
> rewriting this stuff for other installations. But I was totally
> confused by the terms of APL and difference between versions, and
> differences between Apache 2.0, and PSF license, and the necessity to
> sign contributors' agreement, send it by mail (yes, real world
> "postal" mail), perhaps pay a lawyer to validate it? Because everybody
> can mail you my form.

You are *still* fundamentally misunderstanding. There is a big 
difference between the license that contributions *to the PSF* are made 
under (which does not affect you) and the license that Python itself 
(not necessarily or specifically "pydotorg services" whatever they may 
be) are available under. Please understand this difference before 
continuing the discussion.

> Perhaps I also do not want to disclose my
> personal details to any of PSF corporation members

If you don't trust the PSF then you probably *shouldn't* contribute. 
That is pretty fundamental I'm afraid.

> (of course, because
> I am a troll). I would like to sign electronic form with my email
> account. In the end I am the owner, I make all contributions from this
> account, so the only freedom I gain from signing a contributors'
> agreement is that if my account is hacked you can immediately send an
> order to jail me. So, why my email is not enough to sign an agreement?
>
>    
>>> Why PSF can't change license PSF License 2 to PSF License 3 that is
>>> simpler and allow contributions?
>>>
>>>        
>> What are you talking about - the PSF license is the license that the Python
>> source code is *distributed* under. It is very liberal, but has nothing to
>> do with contributions to Python.
>>      
> I need to sign contributor's agreement to dedicate my code to PSF, but
> if I want bugfixes back into my code/library, PSF license seems to
> directly affect it.
>
>    

Nope - incorrect. (You really need to *read* the agreement otherwise you 
will continue to waste people's time.) Licensing your contributions to 
the PSF does *not* affect whatever else you may choose to do with your code.

>> Anyone with questions is free to ask. I've rarely heard any questions
>> though, it doesn't seem to be a problem in practise beyond the beauracracy
>> of getting potential contributors to sign an agreement in the first place.
>>      
> And how many potential contributors were, ahem, pissed off by this requirement?
>
>    

None as far as I know - possibly one including you.

>> All those things are possible under the current licensing situation. If you
>> really want to claim it is *actually* a problem you will have to explain
>> how...
>>      
> Suggestion to drop AFL and Apache 2.0 licenses and leave only
> agreement sent with other reply.
>
>    

You still haven't shown how the current situation is actually a problem.

Michael Foord
>> Michael Foord
>>
>> --
>> http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
>> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
>>
>> READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of
>> your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from
>> any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service,
>> shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure,
>> non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have
>> entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and
>> assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and
>> privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me
>> from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
>>      
> I release you. Amen.
>    


-- 
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog

READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.