On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? >From my point of view as the FPL, the FPCA solves many more problems than it causes, and is certainly better than the CLA. So yes, you could stretch that into saying that I started with the assumption that the FPCA is "necessary". Personally, I'd word it as "I started with the assumption that the FPCA is quite desirable to help avoid future legal issues, and that it's an improvement over the CLA." Did I wonder if we could get away without the FPCA? Sure... but I've got to be honest and say that I didn't consider that for very long, as I still don't see an advantage over the long term of *not* having an FPCA. Perhaps my perspective is a little different than most because I've always tried to help out in the Docs team, and I remember the tension and angst that re-licensing some of our documentation caused. > 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? Absolutely! I have no problem whatsoever bringing it before the Board again. I'd be happy to discuss it in our Board meeting next week if you can write up a proposal to this list in time for us to review. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
