Re: [Jython-dev] Maintaining the Definitive Guide to Jython

[Jeff A. <ja...@fa...>]

Hi Jim,

it's always good to hear that no further admin is necessary. I'll 
happily accept that covers contributions via GitHub, which is probably all.

As GitHub users may not remember theis from the T&Cs they signed up to 
(I didn't), something in the readme/contributing would be good, 
referencing the license and this term already accepted. (I realise the 
license is on the index page.)

Jeff

Jeff Allen

On 06/05/2019 18:44, Jim Baker wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up! It would be great for this book to be 
> updated with PRs, which is why we licensed it under CC-SA, wrote it 
> using a source text approach, and placed it under repo management.
>
> We also currently have assent support for any PRs per GitHub terms of 
> service:
> https://help.github.com/en/articles/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license
>
> (See more here: 
> https://ben.balter.com/2018/01/02/why-you-probably-shouldnt-add-a-cla-to-your-open-source-project/)
>
> So really there's nothing more to be done on the admin side, as I see it.
>
> - Jim
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 9:14 AM Jeff Allen <ja...@fa... 
> <mailto:ja...@fa...>> wrote:
>
>     We have a few pull requests against the Jython book in GitHub, and
>     some interest in seeing it updated. The authors hold a copyright,
>     but released it under a Creative Commons 3.0 CC-BY-SA Licence. It
>     publishes automatically via ReadTheDocs. https://jython.readthedocs.io
>
>     One clear thing is that a modified version must also be released
>     under the same license. Contributors have to assent to that
>     somehow, and this has nothing to do with the license under which
>     the Jython code base is released, or the PSF contributor form. I'm
>     wondering what that assent consists of, and how we keep a record.
>
>     I found this helpful:
>     https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_attribution
>     in forming an idea of what the intention is.
>
>     The stuff about re-use and derivative works does not perfectly fit
>     the case of publication from a repository, but I think closely
>     enough if one regards the state handed down as an "original" and
>     any current state as either "modified slightly" (after a simple
>     bug-fix) or a "derivative" (after adding a new chapter). The
>     record of change in the repository will do, I think, as a
>     description of who authored what change. Almost everything asked
>     for by CC as attribution is supplied by the context, given the
>     change is *in* the repository.
>
>     I've seen it suggested each commit/patch should contain a label
>     signifying assent. Elsewhere I've seen a requirement to add
>     oneself to a contributors file, in which could assert the license
>     at the top. It's hardly unforgeable, but evidence of a sort if
>     need be, which it probably never will. Does either of these seem
>     reasonable to us to ask people? Thoughts?
>
>     Jeff
>
>     -- 
>     Jeff Allen
>