On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, in this particular case, it doesn't have to be either/or. But as that applies to the FPCA, we either make it mandatory (and live with a safety net of "implicit licensing"), or we don't name it mandatory and go the route of "explicit licensing" on every single contribution. I don't see a way to avoid the either/or in that. > My concerns as I clarified several times had nothing to do with usability. That was a misunderstanding on our part, then. I don't remember which of the Board members brought that point up in the meeting, but I apologize if we misunderstood your points. > .In any case, since the board seems uninterested in the issues I > raised. I will drop this discussion. C'mon, Rahul. Don't go there. I think you're making a gross mischaracterization if you think the Board is uninterested in the issues you raised. The very fact that we we've discussed things on this list, then in a Board meeting, and had a lively debate about the pros and cons of your proposal, and then a formal vote shows that we do care about the issues you raised. We might not agree completely with you views on the issue, but that doesn't mean we're uninterested. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
