On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:22:46PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > ** FPCA was not mandated by Red Hat Legal (and significant staffing > changes since CLA was mandated) > ** Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go > towards copyright assignment > ** Other projects have similar agreements, for example Asterisk. Whoa. I object, if the Board is suggesting that the Asterisk agreement bears any similarity to the FPCA. The Asterisk contributor agreement seems to be this one, the "Digium Open Source Software Project Submission Agreement v3.0": https://issues.asterisk.org/view_license_agreement.php It says: You hereby grant Digium a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive, and transferable license to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute the Submissions, and to sublicense such rights to others. The rights granted may be exercised in any form or format, and Digium may distribute and sublicense to others on any licensing terms, including without limitation: (a) open source licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL), or the Berkeley Science Division license (BSD); or (b) binary, proprietary, or commercial licenses. This is essentially like the *letter* of the old Fedora CLA, only it is more straightforward, and, possibly an important difference, the inbound rights explicitly go only to Digium. And unlike the old Fedora CLA it would provide no basis for the interpretation of the latter which saved it from utter fail (thank you spot). (It is also disturbing in getting the expansion of "BSD" wrong but that's a minor point.) The Asterisk agreement is only nominally different from copyright assignment. I note it also goes on to say: If Your Submission is derived from software released by Digium under the GPL, Digium as licensor thereof waives such requirements of the GPL as applied to that software to the limited extent necessary to allow you to provide the Submission and the foregoing license to Digium. I am not sure what this means but I *think* this is a way of saying "don't even *think* of arguing that you're licensing your contributions in under the GPL to us just because we licensed software to you under the GPL". So, no, Fedora Board, the FPCA is not like the Asterisk contributor agreement! - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
