On 07/07/2011 01:22 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote: > 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. As I have pointed out, there are some contributions Fedora routinely accepts that doesn't have a license and isn't covered by the FPCA >> 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. This is why when you want to discuss the concerns raised, you invite both sides so that both sides are represented. I am disappointed that it hasn't happened. > 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. I find my views misrepresented as evident above and I don't see how this discussion address any of the points I mentioned. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
