On 06/28/2011 10:46 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > And I said that the Board could begin to evaluate alternative methods of > signing the FPCA if the present method is deemed too cumbersome. We agree > that there is historical record that that is something that we can do > (although we then have to pass the ideas we have up to legal to evaluate > whether it's okay or not). There's a difference between that and whether > the FPCA is needed at all. It is not the method but the presence of the requirement to sign the FPCA that I find problematic. >> Not really. If you are patching upstream code, pick the same license >> as upstream. I don't see how this is messy. >> > I've now replied in the other message with examples. The problem with using FPCA to handle the licensing implicitly is that upstream has no idea under what license you submitted your patch under if your patch actually requires a license in the first place. How many of the patches that fix FTBFS issues are anything but trivial? In most cases, we are acting in good faith and don't need to put a license in it unless upstream requires it. If you really think this is a issue and don't want to check upstream source, then use the MIT license. Whatever problems are there with public domain code contributions isn't solved by using FPCA either and bringing it up as a argument against a explicit license doesn't make sense to me. > > Nothing prevents you from adding an explicit license to all of your emails > now to prevent people from reusing your email except under fair use. If > email stops being an acceptable source of changes to be applied towards our > packages/documentation/etc/though, that seems like a major wrench in the > works. My emails to a mailing list shouldn't be treated as a "contribution" under the terms of FPCA. I didn't sign the FPCA so that one could relicense my emails and distort it as they see fit under CC-BY-SA and GPL or whatever. This is a problem with a catch all license agreement. I would also note that FPCA designates the Fedora Board with the authority to change the default license but Fedora Board doesn't have any clear rules on the decision making process and with the Fedora Board Chair having veto power, it essentially transfers control of this decision to Red Hat. > So, I consider it your responsibility to at least come up with the precise > question that you want to ask Red Hat Legal Did Red Hat Legal drive the requirement for the FPCA? In what cases is this required? What risks do they expect to alleviate by using the FPCA? I am sending it here because I don't consider this purely a legal matter at this point but a matter of Fedora policy. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
