[Python-legal-sig] Round 2: Is CLA required to send and accept edits for Python documentation?

[anatoly techtonik]

The previous round of debates ended up in August 2013 with no satisfying answer.
I'd like this question to be worked out on PyCon 2014 if it is
impossible to do on
this mailing list.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Jesse Noller <jnoller at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So what is the difference that means Wikimedia Foundation do not
>> >>> ask for additional agreement documents, while PSF do ask for
>> >>> additional agreement documents from the contributor?
>
>> […] you have to account for the Python license itself which is
>> actually a "stack" stemming from the old beOpen days, python labs etc.
>
> That's an interesting point. Nick Coghlan and I discussed this at PyCon
> AU 2013. There are many wrinkles in the ancient license terms. But I
> don't see how that leads to the PSF's assertion that a CLA is required.
>
> Can we have a clear explanation of what the relevance of the ancient
> (but, of course, still legally-binding) license terms are to the
> discussion of why a CLA is needed?

Correct me if I define the wrong point of conflict, but Wikipedia
content is illegal,
because its contributors didn't sign the CLA, so its CC-BY-SA 3.0
claims are invalid.

If Wikipedia is legal, then PSF requirement CLA for documentation edit
can be lifted.


So far python-legal-sig@ advocates neither accept Wikipedia as
illegal, nor do they
want to cancel CLA requirement.


The last argument from the old thread is that Python license stack is
the reason. I don't see problems to choose a different license for new
documentation content, which is also a good question for community
discussion (if PSF is able to organize this).