On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> ** Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go
> towards copyright assignment
This makes it seem like a either/or choice. That isn't the case.
> ** Seems the objection to the FPCA is not that they don't want to sign
> the FPCA but that it's "hard" to sign the FPCA
> *** Would it be better to address those specific usability problems?
My concerns as I clarified several times had nothing to do with usability.
> *** In the US, at least, there's only minimal rights associated with
> things that have no license, therefore, we would be on shakey legal
> grounds if we accepted contributions without license terms
Yet this routinely happens. Patches contributed via bugzilla or ones
that contributors pick from mailing lists etc. FPCA can only cover a
subset of these where the patch contributor is also a Fedora contributor
.In any case, since the board seems uninterested in the issues I
raised. I will drop this discussion.
advisory-board mailing list