On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:49:03PM -0400, Jon Stanley 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. > > > > 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. Right, I misunderstood. Sorry. Of course Digium doesn't "need" to have those rights, as I'm sure there are other viable business models it could pursue. (There is a possibility that counsel for Digium is subscribed to this mailing list so I am sort of trolling that person too. :) > 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. You are correct, sir. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
