On 06/28/2011 07:26 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > One of my very specific questions in the last board IRC meeting was if > anyone was not signing the FPCA because of some issue with the text of > the document itself, rather than simply not being around/not reading > email/whatever. The answer that I got was that no one was aware of any > such person - if you are, I'd like to know about it. As I already indicated, I compared FPCA to CLA and FPCA was certainly a much better text however I did not challenge the necessity of FPCA since I assumed Red Hat Legal was mandating this but it seems that is not the case and the idea of a default license is problematic IMO. > Having gone through the FPCA signing process myself shortly after it > became available, I can tell you that the process to do so was not at > all onerous - in fact, it couldn't have been much easier. This is a point of concern at all. Please read my reply to Toshio for a summary. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
