On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Yeah, perhaps I didn't make it as clear in the notes (and probably should have deleted it). we discussed the Asterisk agreement and the uniqueness of it due to the dual-licensing model of Asterisk, and Digium needs to have the rights to make a proprietary distribution of your contributions. This is obviously the *exact opposite* of what we're aiming for with the FPCA. The Canonical agreement was also discussed, as an example of where we don't want to go - that agreement provides *no* protection against proprietary relicensing. _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
