On 06/27/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > Red Hat really likes that splash. I would prefer it remain. Ironically, when opensource.com was about to be launched, I was suggesting that splash in the first place but I am not sure putting up that splash on fedoraproject.org gives the right impression. Would someone explain what that really means in this context? >> b) Has a copyright notice, "Red Hat, Inc and others" and that divides >> the community into Red Hat vs others. Since Red Hat doesn't have any >> copyright ownership over Fedora. Why not just (c) Fedora Project >> contributors ? Also refer to > Please note that the "Fedora Project" is not a legal entity, and I am > not sure that it can claim to hold copyright on anything. Do note that what I suggest is different. Fedora Project may not able to hold copyright but Fedora Project contributors certainly can. Please correct me if I am wrong but both Richard Fontana and Pam seems to agree with this. There is no reason not to replace all instances of (C) Red Hat and others within Fedora with (C) Fedora Project contributors IMO. > I'm happy to have a larger discussion on this topic, but I think it is > important for there to be a "safety net" to ensure that contributions > made to Fedora are always under a Free License. I do not feel that > requiring that contributors agree to the FPCA is a confusing choice. I think you ignored the fact that it clearly is although one could argue about whether this is worth the price or not. As I pointed out earlier, why does anyone submitting content under CC-BY-SA have to agree to the FPCA? CC-BY-SA is clearly acceptable as a in-bound license for Fedora and having anyone sign the FPCA when there is a explicit license is superfluous as far as I can see. What about patches submitted via bugzilla where the person has not agreed to the FPCA? I think explicit licensing is always the better option. For instance, If a spec file from Fedora gets reused by any other distro, the FPCA default license is far from obvious to them. As a matter of policy, I think we need to seriously consider dismantling FPCA although FPCA is a enormous improvement over the CLA. I prefer we publish license recommendations that covers the obvious use cases and handle the corner cases as needed. I would be happy to work on a initial draft if the Fedora Board is willing to consider this. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
