On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > ** Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go > towards copyright assignment This makes it seem like a either/or choice. That isn't the case. > ** Seems the objection to the FPCA is not that they don't want to sign > the FPCA but that it's "hard" to sign the FPCA > *** Would it be better to address those specific usability problems? My concerns as I clarified several times had nothing to do with usability. > *** In the US, at least, there's only minimal rights associated with > things that have no license, therefore, we would be on shakey legal > grounds if we accepted contributions without license terms Yet this routinely happens. Patches contributed via bugzilla or ones that contributors pick from mailing lists etc. FPCA can only cover a subset of these where the patch contributor is also a Fedora contributor .In any case, since the board seems uninterested in the issues I raised. I will drop this discussion. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
