On 04/03/2013 22:08, Brett Cannon wrote:



On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
<mailto:breamore...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:

    On 04/03/2013 20:46, Terry Reedy wrote:

        On 3/4/2013 11:36 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:




            On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Brian Curtin
            <br...@python.org <mailto:br...@python.org>
            <mailto:br...@python.org <mailto:br...@python.org>>> wrote:

                 The full announcement is at

            
http://blog.python.org/2013/__03/introducing-electronic-__contributor.html
            
<http://blog.python.org/2013/03/introducing-electronic-contributor.html>,
                 but a summary follows.

                 We've now moved to an electronic Contributor License
            Agreement
            form at
            http://www.python.org/psf/__contrib/contrib-form/
            <http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/> which will
            hopefully
                 ease the signing and sending of forms for our potential
            contributors.
                 The form shows the required fields whether you're
            signing as an
                 individual or a representative of an organization, and
            removes the
                 need to print, scan, fax, etc.

                 When a new contributor fills in the form, they are
            emailed a copy of
                 the form and asked to confirm the email address that
            they used (and
                 received that copy at). Upon confirming, the signed
            form is sent to
                 the PSF Administrator and filed away.

                 The signature can either be generated from your typed
            name, or you
            can
                 draw or upload your actual written signature if you choose.


            With this in place I would like to propose that all patches
            submitted to
            bugs.python.org <http://bugs.python.org>
            <http://bugs.python.org> must come from someone who has
            signed the CLA before we consider committing it (if you want
            to be truly
            paranoid we could say that we won't even look at the code
            w/o a CLA).


        Either policy could be facilitated by tracker changes. In order
        to see
        the file upload box, one must login and the tracker knows who
        has a CLA
        on file (as indicated by a * suffix on the name). If a file is
        uploaded
        by someone without, a box could popup with the link to the
        e-form and a
        message that a CLA is required.


    People already use the bug tracker as an excuse not to contribute,
    wouldn't this requirement make the situation worse?


Depends on your paranoia. If you're worried about accidentally lifting
IP merely by reading someone's source code, then you wouldn't want to
touch code without the CLA signed.

Now I'm not that paranoid, but I'm still not about to commit someone's
code now without the CLA signed to make sure we are legally covered for
the patch. If someone chooses not to contribute because of the CLA
that's fine, but since we have already told at least Anatoly that we
won't accept patches from him until he signs the CLA I'm not going to
start acting differently towards others. I view legally covering our ass
by having someone fill in a form is worth the potential loss of some
contribution in the grand scheme of things.



Who's talking source code, you're previously mentioned *ALL* patches needing a CLA. Does this mean you have to sign a CLA for a one line documentation patch? What is the definition of a patch, an actual patch file or a proposal for a change that is given within a bug tracker message?

--
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to