On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:49:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > *** 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. I think there may be some confusion on this one particular point. Something can be licensed even if it doesn't have an explicit license notice on it. Implicit licensing is pervasive in free software development. We use the term of art "Unlicensed" in the FPCA, but, if you imagine a world where the FPCA isn't used *and* Rahul's mandatory explicit licensing alternative isn't adopted, Fedora contributions are still licensed even when they don't have license notices on them. And those Bugzilla patches or mailing list patches from non-FAS people are licensed too. In the FPCA, "Unlicensed" just means "doesn't have an explicit license notice"; it doesn't mean unlicensed. Arguably, a benefit of the FPCA is that in a large number of cases that might otherwise be governed by implicit licensing, there is an understanding that an explicit license has been granted by the contributor, so there is total clarity about the terms governing the contribution. I think that must be the point the Board was really trying to make. This may also lead to additional benefits which I have heard spot articulate. But most projects deal with implicit licensing to some degree or other, including Fedora. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
