Re: [Jython-dev] Python Software Foundation - Jython CLA

[Jim B. <jim...@py...>]

Jeff,

This analysis seems quite sound to me. Simply put, we have a documentation
bug here. They are our most numerous bugs in Jython it seems :(

The original contributor agreement is no doubt related to the release of
Jython (vs the earlier JPython) that was done at the beginning of 2001; the
PSF itself comes together sometime later that year. This was all to resolve
trademark and other issues with CNRI. To extend that historical footnote,
BeOpen was also involved at some point, as we see in
https://docs.python.org/2/license.html, but Python 2.1 — and confusingly
2.0.1! — and later has a PSF license.

In a similar fashion, Jython 2.2 and later has a PSF license as we see here
https://github.com/jythontools/jython/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

So we just need one contributor agreement for both projects.

- Jim



On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Jeff Allen <ja...@fa...> wrote:

> Hi Ewa:
>
> I must defer to the PM (Frank) concerning what checks might be made that
> code contributed is covered by a CLA and at what threshold it becomes an
> issue. There's no tool support I know of: numbers are small so tools really
> aren't essential.
>
> In my experience, there's no such thing as a "Jython CLA". I filled in the
> form you link and was told it was the wrong one. I filled in the PSF one
> and everyone was happy. That's really all I know for sure.
>
> Our licence file says the PSF makes Jython available to users (with the
> usual disclaimers). So code given to Jython is clearly code given to the
> PSF. And both the contributor agreements you can find are agreements with
> the PSF, even the "wrong" one. So I think we just need to have signed an
> agreement with the PSF, and why not the standard one?
>
> If I compare the standard form and the "wrong" form, I notice the latter
> has a retrospective clause to cover "all prior contributions made by us to
> any Jython version". I speculate it was needed to cover work before the
> adoption by the PSF, and before I showed up. I can't imagine anyone
> correctly using it nowadays.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff Allen
>
> On 18/06/2018 16:26, Ewa Jodlowska wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff -
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Jeff Allen <ja...@fa...> wrote:
>
>> Jim, Ewa, Ernest, hi.
>>
>> (Also, congratulation to Ernest.)
>>
>> " ... there is currently no way to designate whether the CLA is for
>> Jython."
>>
>> There is equally no way to designate that the CLA is for CPython. And no
>> way to designate that the CLA is for some other PSF artefact that is not,
>> itself, CPython or Jython.
>>
>> I think this is deliberate, and a good thing, so my conclusion is
>> opposite to that in the thread below.
>>
>> We're not simply re-using the design of a PSF form. Contributors to
>> Jython give their work to the PSF, and the PSF lets  everyone else use it. (
>> https://hg.python.org/jython/file/tip/LICENSE.txt). If we then want to
>> contribute elsewhere in the PSF, as I have in a small way, there is no
>> additional barrier.
>>
>> It would be convenient if, whatever one contributed to the PSF,
>> submitting a CLA didn't involve signing up to bugs.python.org when all
>> other interaction is via GitHub. But as that's easily done, and there's a
>> comprehensible reason, I don't worry too much it will put people off. When
>> you make this even simpler, could you make sure that it still works for
>> Jython?
>>
> Can you clarify what the tracking process is for Jython's CLAs? Ernest and
> I are not familiar with this process or any context related to it.
>
>> We do need to get rid of the misleading Jython-specific form, though. I
>> signed that one too, in the day, before being corrected. I assume there was
>> a good reason for it at one time, but I can only speculate what it was.
>>
>
> Currently, the only Jython "form" I found online is
> https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form-jython/. Do you know of
> any others?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ewa
>
>
>