On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 07:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:03:08AM -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > > > > > If the CLA does not mention age, then we have pretty much commented on > > the subject as much as we can. > > this matter turns up quite often, and we should have some standard > answer, hopefully in a positive way. Otherwise everyone will have a > different dealing with this situation and it will often escalate into > f-a-b (which doesn't really resolve this, yet). > > No, I'm not favouring Fedora Child Labour, I'm demanding it! ;) Axel: Yes, this is true. My concern, to be honest, is that if we start asking questions of the lawyers, we might get back answers. :) For example, what if we get back the answer, "If you are under the age of 18 in the USA, you need a parent's signature"? Where before we didn't have any such rule, now we have a rule *and* an unknown number of current contributors might be suddenly out of compliance. Another way to look at this is, how do we turn pursuing this question where the answer can lead to *more* contributors? One idea that I like was having a teacher proxy or co-sign for a class working on a FLOSS contribution. I don't see that as a nice way to simplify the contributor process for some people. - 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
