[Python-Dev] Re: Re: license issues with profiler.py and
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sat Feb 12 21:30:42 CET 2005
"Aahz" <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote in message
news:20050212145326.GA7836 at panix.com...
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> After reading this page and pages linked thereto, I get the impression
>> you are only asking for contributor forms from contributors of original
>> material (such as module or manual section) and not from submitters of
>> suggestions (via news,mail) or patches (via sourceforge). Correct?
> Half-correct: patches constitute "work" and should also require a
> contrib agreement.
As I remember, my impression was based on the suggested procedure of first
copywrite one's work and then license it under one of two acceptible
"original licenses". This makes sense for a whole module, but hardly for
most patches, to the point of being nonsense for a patch of one word, as
some of mine have been (in text form, with the actual diff being prepared
by the committer). This is not to deny that editing -- finding the exact
place to insert or change a word is "work" -- but to say that it is work of
a different sort from original authorship.
So, if the lawyer thinks patches should also have a contrib agreement, then
I strongly recommend a separate blanket agreement that covers all patches
one ever contributes as one ongoing work.
> But we're probably not going to press the point
> until we get contrib agreements from all CVS committers.
Even though I am not such, I would happily fill and fax a blanket patch
agreement were that deemed to be helpful.
Terry J. Reedy
More information about the Python-Dev