On 07/07/2011 02:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > 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. I believe the benefits of a explicit license for specific classes of contributions (spec files for instance) and leaving the rest that is typically uncovered by FPCA as implicit licensed but continuing to encourage (but not mandate) explicit licensing gets us the benefits without having a additional layer of agreement. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
