On 06/29/2011 09:39 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > 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. Other distributions seems to get along just fine without a FPCA type agreement. Canonical has a disastrously bad CLA but openSUSE, Mandriva, Mageia etc seem to have no contributor agreements afaik. I am leaving out non corporate affliated distros as I assume they aren't in the same position. > 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. Let's get specific then. I suggest explicit licensing for all Fedora content including website and documentation. All spec files and kickstart files. I am sure one could find corner cases here and I could equally well point out things that FPCA doesn't cover but I would like to know if this leaves out anything major that the FPCA does cover Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
