On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 05:02:01PM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote: > 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. > > I didn't mean to imply in the meeting that the FPCA was an analog to > the Asterisk agreement, but I see that the meeting minutes look that > way. I'm sorry for the confusion there. > > I brought up the license agreement in Asterisk as an example of a > community (one that I'm very familiar with) that took a long hard look > at explicit licensing vs. implicity licensing. I didn't mean to imply > that the the Asterisk license agreement itself is close to the FPCA. > I even said in the meeting something to the effect of "Coming from the > Asterisk community, and reading the first few drafts of the FPCA was > like a breath of fresh air." > > I'll be the first to admit that although I understand Digium's > reasoning behind their license agreement, it is not my favorite. The > FPCA, on the other hand, is not only simpler to understand, but much > more fair (in my opinion). Ah, I apologize for my misunderstanding. I fully realized the possibility that my remarks might annoy you of course. :-) - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
