On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 01:43:00PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 06/30/2011 12:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > If You are not the copyright holder of a given Contribution that You > > wish to Submit to Fedora (for example, if Your employer or > > university holds copyright in it), it is Your responsibility to > > first obtain authorization from the copyright holder to Submit the > > Contribution under the terms of this FPCA on behalf of, or otherwise > > with the permission of, that copyright holder. One form of such > > authorization is for the copyright holder to place, or permit You to > > place, an Acceptable License For Fedora on the Contribution. > > > > So it addresses the issue of works made for hire and such, in the > > gentlest possible way. But it only applies to 'Contributions' - the > > original creative things that *You* the Contributor personally > > created. It does not refer to anything else. > > I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, to be honest. I think the case > where a Fedora Contributor packages up an explicitly licensed piece of > code falls within this case. No, except to the extent that the Fedora contributor created some copyrightable material in doing so. Taking someone else's patch from Bugzilla does not come under that definition. Section 1 could have been written to say "If you are not the copyright holder of a given Work...", clashing awkwardly with the document's otherwise exclusive focus on the subset of Works that are capital-C Contributions, but it intentionally was not written that way. It instead refers to the narrower concept of capital-C Contributions. We talked about this. We argued about this. It is likely that much of this discussion took place in person but I can possibly produce emails. :-) >I do agree that it doesn't grant any sort > of licensing permission on an unlicensed work, but it does advise how > such a work could be brought under the FPCA. No, it refers only to capital-C Contributions. The definition of capital-C Contribution doesn't include any explicitly licensed code written by anyone else. Everything that is not a capital-C Contribution is outside scope. Remember that confusion and unintentional FUD regarding that issue was one of the main flaws of the old Fedora CLA. It doesn't really matter anyway. You aren't getting any magical legal benefit from the inclusion of Section 1. Section 1 is mainly an advisory or educational statement, and also, I suppose, a consequence of your own design feature that you wanted the FPCA to be signed once by individual human contributors. The broader statement you seem to want to make is probably best made in some external document like a FAQ for contributors or something. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
