On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:42 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > I don't think that the Fedora Board (or FESCo) can supercede the CLA, > which states that original contributions without prior license are > covered under the CLA. This is because the CLA is a signed agreement > explicitly to cover this case. +1 Since the topic under question is clearly covered by the CLA, any other statement that stands alone or interprets the CLA for the general public would be like the Board/FESCo giving legal advice. If someone doesn't feel that the CLA covers their spec file needs, they need to hire their own attorney for legal advice. What we could consider is making the CLA much more prominent, pointing to it as the mortar that holds Fedora together. Let people then go figure out for themselves how that CLA applies to their own legal and contributory questions. After last year's FUDCon, I took the task of writing an interpretation of the CLA in plainer language. When I took it to Legal, the reply was clear -- we do not need to provide a second, duplicate document that covers the same content as the CLA. It would be like providing legal interpretation for the world. If we want to make the CLA more clear, let's request changes to the document itself, not create a special interpretive document. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
