On 3/6/2013 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On 05/03/13 09:08, Brett Cannon wrote:
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.
Pardon my ignorance, but how does a CLA protect us in the event of an IP
violation?
The penalty for willful copyright violation (possible punitive damages)
is higher than for inadvertent violation (typically, remove the
offending code). In the CLA, contributors affirm that they will only
contribute code they have a legal right to contribute. This makes it
clear that PSF only wants legal code. We do not grab 3rd party code
without author participation even if the license would seem to make it
legal to do so.
Good repository software, including svn and hg, can trace every line to
a specific commit. Commit messages typically have an issue number and
credit (blame) any patch author other than the one making the commit. So
any line should be traceable to a specific person and we should have a
CLA for that person.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
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
