On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 16:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:34 -0400, 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 why I was talking about EULA. > > You could (presumably) easily add a note (attendum) stating something > similar to: > "Unless otherwise stated inside, the *.spec files found inside of > *.src.rpms can be assumed to be covered by following license ...." I can only do this if every spec file contributor agrees to that sublicense. ~spot _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
