Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
Perhaps I'm being misunderstood here. I'm not looking to restrict Red Hat from benefiting, and I'm suprised that was inferred from my comments, since it certainly wouldn't make any sense to say that about the company that pays my paycheck.
If any potential contributor wants any kind of guarantee that Red Hat should not benefit from their contributions, they should not contribute under any open license at all. The point is that if you contribute to Fedora or any Free software project for that matter, the community and Red Hat as a part of it might be benefit from it. This benefit goes both way and is a major part of the Fedora Project and Linux. The guarantee from Fedora Project is that your contributions will be always Free and open to everyone in the community and not just Red Hat and I believe this is a sensible understanding that you can convey to any skeptic.
Those objectives certainly do go a long way to defining it; somehow I haven't seen that page before. If I were to write a Social Contract, having read them, I might just rip them off wholesale, since they are very good. :)
I think the list of objectives which is referred to from the about page already serves the purpose you outline very well. In other words, do you see a need for a social contract that is different from what is described in the list of objectives?
Rahul _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
