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

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

Jeff, Adam,

Sounds good about being explicit about the license and the terms &
conditions associated with the PR process, as seen in
https://github.com/jython/book/pull/4/commits/9d67b8136532b14b6ddc172bab38d46937a44070

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:58 PM Jeff Allen <ja...@fa...> wrote:

> 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...> 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
>>
>>