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

[Ben Finney]

anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> writes:

> Correct me if I define the wrong point of conflict, but Wikipedia
> content is illegal,

That's an incoherent statement: actions, not content, are what
constitute illegality.

What action, by what party, are you contending is illegal? What law does
it violate, in what jurisdiction?

> because its contributors didn't sign the CLA, so its CC-BY-SA 3.0
> claims are invalid.

This implies you're talking about the Python developers redistributing
Wikipedia content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 combined with Python code under PSF
license.

Is that what you're saying is “illegal”? What law is violated, and how?

-- 
 \           “Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep |
  `\                                                alone.” —anonymous |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney