On Dec 09, 2014, at 07:42 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>A more restricted CLA that limited the PSF's outgoing licence choices to
>OSI approved open source licenses might address some of the concerns
>without causing problems elsewhere, but the combination of being both
>interested in core development a
On 9 Dec 2014 08:47, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
>
> On Dec 09, 2014, at 09:31 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> >Rather, I'm asking what, specifically, necessitates this situation.
> >
> >What would need to change, for the PSF to accept contributions to the
> >Python copyrighted works, without requiring the co
Ethan Furman writes:
> Well, this is the wrong mailing list for those questions.
Thanks. I addressed the claim here where it was made; but you're right
that a different forum is better for an ongoing discussion about this
topic.
Barry Warsaw writes:
> My understanding is that the PSF needs t
On Dec 09, 2014, at 09:31 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>Rather, I'm asking what, specifically, necessitates this situation.
>
>What would need to change, for the PSF to accept contributions to the
>Python copyrighted works, without requiring the contributor to do
>anything but license the work under Apac
On 12/08/2014 02:31 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Eric Snow writes:
>
>> There's no real way around this, is there? […] the CLA part is pretty
>> unavoidable.
>
> The PSF presently madates that any contributor to Python sign
> http://legacy.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/contributor-agreement.pdf
Eric Snow writes:
> There's no real way around this, is there? […] the CLA part is pretty
> unavoidable.
The PSF presently madates that any contributor to Python sign
http://legacy.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/contributor-agreement.pdf>
the “Contributor Agreement”. This is a unilateral gr
