On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:25:06AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > However FPCA doesn't mandate the use of a Free and open > source license as the default. It seems somewhat vague about this. > That, I think is a point of concern. The FPCA says: A Later Default License shall be chosen from the appropriate categorical sublist of Acceptable Licenses For Fedora. The latter term is defined as: a license selected from the appropriate categorical sublist of the full list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board. Now, I can see how that raises your basic concern which ultimately has to do with details of Fedora governance. However, note that the FPCA also says: Once a Later Default License has been designated, Your Unlicensed Contribution shall also be licensed to the Fedora Community under that Later Default License. *Such designation shall not affect the continuing applicability of the Current Default License to Your Contribution.* [emphasis added] Thus, while this version of the FPCA remains in place, I think you need not be so concerned, as 'Code' will always have the MIT license as a default license and 'Content' will always have CC BY-SA as a default license. So, imagine a rogue Fedora Board and villainous FPL that decide that the TrueCrypt License is to be added to the Fedora 'good licenses' list (let's suppose they imprison spot so that he is unable to stop this from happening) and then they designates the TrueCrypt License as the new default Code license. But the MIT license already allows anyone to take code under it and essentially relicense it under the TrueCrypt License. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
