Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
specified>".
I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
a minimum.
Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
license as part of the original EULA?
No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.
That's exactly what I was confused about. My understanding of the CLA is
that it applies to all contributions including the spec file and hence
modifying the CLA is not necessary which I agree would be very painful
to do.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
