On 06/28/2011 12:47 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Depends on what you mean. If you're talking about bugzilla you may be > correct. But currently, as you point out we don't require you to do either > of those in bugzilla. So if you propose that people do this in bugzilla, > you're imposing an additional burden. Right. Since we don't do this now, FPCA doesn't protect us and we have to rely on the rights granted by a explicit license. FPCA as a catch all only works if the person submitting the patch has agreed to it which is not the case in bugzilla. > OTOH, if you take away the FPCA and then demand that they > put an explicit license on all of their patches, then you're expecting them > to do the work of generating the license boilerplate for every single patch > that they create and check in. That is not true. Most of the patches I have ever checked in have been either cherry picked from upstream or trivial. Non-trivial patches being checked in without any license should be rare and in those cases adding a copyright notice is not a big burden. Major upstream projects routinely merge in patches from dozens and dozens of people. They all require explicit license for the patches. We are going to be handling much less patches. I don't see why need a FPCA to handle this Rahul Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
