On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 02:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 06/29/2011 02:26 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > And on the other side of this coin, do we want to force maintainers to hunt > > down authors of patches posted on upstream mailing lists and get them to > > explicitly license these things so that the maintainers can then add them > > to our packages with the explicit license or do we want the FPCA to > > establish responsibility for this? > > How does FPCA really help here? If upstream has a unlicensed patch, > unless the upstream author has signed the FPCA which wouldn't be that > likely, we have the responsibility to ensure that it is properly > licensed. The responsibility to do this is still with anyone using a > patch in Fedora. In practise, we are relying on good faith more often > as Adam Williamson suggested. Just to clarify, the questions in my email were not rhetorical, they were genuine questions that I'd love to get answers to. =) I know legal and licensing issues can be very complex and often counter-intuitive. There was a bit of suggestion in there too, yep, but I was writing from the position of knowing that my understanding might be incomplete or incorrect, and hoping someone would confirm or deny... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
