On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Is this safer than turning a blind eye to it, and finding out we can be sued later? I think it would be smarter to ask the lawyers, knowing full well that we'll need a sane plan if they say no to anyone under 18 without additional paperwork. It's just one boring chore that could save our butts down the road. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
