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

[Robert Kern]

On 2014-01-29 18:59, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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?

No. In the previous iteration of this thread he has asserted that Wikipedia's 
change of license from the GFDL to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 is the same as the 
relicensing scenario that motivates PSF's CLA requirement. He seems to be 
asserting here that if the PSF stands by its reasoning for its CLA, it must also 
publicly denounce Wikipedia for doing its license change without CLAs in place.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco