Mailing List Archive

Vladimir Marangozov writes:
> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
> to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed
> code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
> wouldn't have been what they are today.

You shouldn't be; the FSF certainly requires a signed copyright
assignment from contributors. I had to sign one for a bunch of
patches I made to oleo many years ago. It was a minor nuissance, but
that's all.
(The *sad* part is that there hasn't been a new release of oleo that
could have included the patches for five years! ;) Just noticed that
there is a release at ftp.gnu.org now; I'll have to take a look!


-Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives

Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> I hereby withdraw the posted license. There still is the need for a
> new license, but we need to go back to the drawing board for it.

So, in the end, am I still invited to sign & send the "wet" form or
I'd better wait to let it dry?

BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed
code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
wouldn't have been what they are today.

--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252

Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Please send in the form -- the license was a totally separate issue
> that I shouldn't have brought up in the same mail (or at all, in this
> stage anyway -- we'll work this out with the Python consortium members
> first).

ok.

>
> > BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
> > to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed
> > code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
> > wouldn't have been what they are today.
>
> Unfortunately, that's the price we have to pay. What we get is legal
> protection from CNRI. In general CNRI has contributed a lot to
> Python; probably more than you realize.

I realize that. But I also realize that in case of a problem, the wet
form protects CNRI, not the contributor.

Hm. And what happens if you get hit by a bus? Or in 100 years when
we'll dance with angels in Paradise? Will Python stay bound to CNRI
with little legal possibilities to detach it, in case our successors
(or you) start working in another organization? IANAL and curious.

--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252

>>>>> "VM" == Vladimir Marangozov <Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr> writes:

VM> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world
VM> I'm asked to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send
VM> e-mails for contributed code. If Python or Linux had had such
VM> constraints from the start, they wouldn't have been what they
VM> are today.

Note that the FSF has been requiring signatures for a long time.
Actually, their requirements are IMHO more onerous because they
require you to assign your copyrights to the FSF. Their lawyers have
told them that they cannot defend the copyright of, e.g. Emacs, unless
they own the copyrights to the entire codebase (or at least, anything
that they couldn't rip out, throw away, and not completely cripple the
application).

CNRI's viewpoint is less drastic, but still important. It means that
you retain the copyright on the code (good for you), but you give us
permission to use it as we see fit (good for us /and/ for you :).
Otherwise, it would be possible for a malicious person to contribute
something really vital and useful, wait for it to become
indispensible, and then say, "oops, we really didn't mean to let you
use that code, sorry!"

-Barry

Vladimir Marangozov wrote:
>...
> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
> to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for contributed
> code. If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
> wouldn't have been what they are today.

Actually, this isn't surprising at all. The Free Software Foundation
*requires* this kind of thing to be filed with them before you
contribute code to the FSF. Essentially, it is a way for the FSF (and
CNRI) to legally state that they own the copyright on the particular
code. Without that, the contributor could come along later and claim a
copyright on the code.

The IBM folks who are working on Apache have provided legal releases to
the Apache Software Foundation that basically states that IBM won't try
to assume any rights under copyright law on the code they contribute to
Apache. In fact, every time that I receive a patch for my mod_dav Apache
module, the IBM guy attaches a release to the email that has the patch.

In a pure, cooperative, world none of this would be necessary. However,
the world simply doesn't work that way and all this stuff (licenses,
copyrights, releases) is there to prevent Bad Things from happening. It
isn't evil in itself, but simply a reflection of the business
environment and the society that we're working within.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

[Vladimir Marangozov]
> BTW, I'm surprised by the fact that in an Open Source world I'm asked
> to sign a licence agreement with CNRI or to send e-mails for
> contributed code.

[Fred L. Drake, Jr.]
> You shouldn't be; the FSF certainly requires a signed copyright
> assignment from contributors. I had to sign one for a bunch of
> patches I made to oleo many years ago. It was a minor nuissance, but
> that's all.

Except they add up: year after year, a new batch of stupid little
requirements piles up on top of the last year's, and it's a ratchet
effect -- always more, never less. The aggregate gets to be a real
weariness on the soul. I had to laugh when François Pinard happened to post
this on c.l.py today:

> ...
> Would it be any volunteer, at least for taking care of filling the FSF
> papers, if any are needed? I filled more than enough of those in my
> life, I prefer to avoid the burden.

Ask Barry how many years we've been trying to sign pymode over to the FSF
<0.5 wink>.

[Vlad]
> If Python or Linux had had such constraints from the start, they
> wouldn't have been what they are today.

I sympathize, but that's really hard to say. You don't get pig-biting weary
of this crap until you're my age <wink>. AFAIK, Berkeley has never beed
sued over the BSD license, MIT over the X license, or the U of Arizona over
the Icon license (none, really -- Icon is in the public domain). All the
legal mumbo jumbo in the "modern" licenses is like wearing garlic around
your neck to ward off vampires: the threat isn't real, and if it were it
wouldn't do you any good anyway.

a-wooden-stake-thru-the-heart-is-your-only-true-defense-ly y'rs - tim