On 06/28/2011 03:07 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > The FPCA has been discussed by the Board in several of our meetings > over the past several months. Lately the FPCA discussion has mostly > centered around the implementation details and status updates, but you > can well imagine that it would be hard to change something like the > CLA->FPCA without getting the Board's attention I understand that. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Did the Board start with the assumption that FPCA is necessary and move on to discuss the implementation details or were the board members convinced that it was necessary and there is sufficient justification for it in the first place, enough to get every contributor to sign it compulsorily? Is the Fedora Board willing to entertain a alternative proposal that has no implicit "default license" but accepts any Free software license (acceptable by the licensing guidelines) that is explicit? My fundamental disagreement with the FPCA is based on the principle that implicit licenses are hidden and non-obvious to contributors, especially those who exist outside the Fedora world and want to reuse what we create (spec files etc). Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
