On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:10:23PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 06/29/2011 08:26 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Right. I'm not arguing with you that the FPCA does not cover this. I'm > > asking, do we want to move away from relying on good faith (current > > practice) to forcing maintainers to hunt down license information when they > > do this? > > Nope. I am only suggesting explicit licensing as a alternative where we > rely on FPCA default license now. Just my opinion: This is probably not practical. Non-explicit licensing is a deeply embedded practice in free software development culture and may even be essential to its efficient operation in many cases. In some ways the FPCA may have the effect of nudging people towards thinking about the benefits of explicit licensing, which may be a good thing overall. But to attempt to mandate it at this point in history would be either completely ineffective or disastrous. There might be specific categories of contributions where your suggestion could work, though. I might be misunderstanding it too. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
