On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here is a question for you. If > Fedora design team accepted any contributions licensed under CC-BY-SA > and dropped the necessity of FPCA and the warning at the top of > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_connect_to_the_design_team_sparkleshare > > Do you honestly believe that we will lower the barrier to entry or > not? I would submit that this is indeed the case and FPCA serves no > purpose here. No, there's already a high barrier to entry there - you have to have a FAS account. Clicking a few more times to sign the FPCA is not going to lose us contributors that are willing to get a FAS account in order to be able to connect (not only that, you need an SSH key, and to set up an ssh config file, my oh my - quite a lot to ask of a designer who probably has never heard of either of those things before) Again, if you've found such a living, breathing person, I'd be happy to hear about it. Two more questions for you to think about: 1) When's the last time that you saw a (non-upstream) contribution carry an explicit license? That requirement would be *much* more onerous than simply having a FPCA that declares a default license for unlicensed code/content. 2) Semi-seriously, along the same lines, under what license is this (or any other) e-mail thread? I don't believe that I've ever seen an explicit license called out on an e-mail before. Thanks to the FPCA, I can reasonably believe that it's CC-BY-SA supplemented by Moral Rights Clause Waiver and GPL Relicensing Permission. Without the FPCA, I'd have no choice but to assume that it was non-free. _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
