On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:51:00PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:59:07PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > I was trying to point at the new project contributor agreement (FPCA), > > can mainly find Richard's article on the topic[0] and the draft[1]. > > So I was going to ask what the status was, then I read this ... > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses#The_Contributor_License_Agreement > > > > The purpose of the Contributor License Agreement (CLA) is to > > establish copyright control under Red Hat, Inc. on behalf of the > > Fedora Project. By having a single entity hold copyright: > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > It goes on to summarize several points that sound inaccurate to me > > (I'm not sure our CLA allows us to relicense, I believe we > > sub-license, and it's a bit sketchy and not worth cheering about IMHO; > > second point seems sketchy, I don't see how the CLA stops someone from > > suing anyone, it just makes Red Hat a big target; third point seems > > accurate but a bit rough.) > > > > Regardless, the first paragraph is wildly inaccurate with both the CLA > > and the intention of the Fedora Project, not even to mention the > > intention of Red Hat. > > I agree completely (except to say that the reference to "relicensing" > probably means 'changing the sublicensing terms used by Red Hat to > other sublicensing terms' and as such is kind of accurate - cf. Fedora > docs relicensing). > > I pointed these problems out before - I wrote the unsigned comments on the talk page: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_talk:Licenses Ah, thanks. I'll also put a note about this discussion, just to keep the circle complete. I came directly here because I could see the text hadn't been changed and needed attention. > Regarding that third point, I'm not sure if that's simply restating > the first point or expressing something else. I guess it's true, but > the Fedora docs relicensing shows that in practice such power isn't > really exercised without making reasonable efforts to notify copyright > holders and provide opportunities to object or opt out. > > Anyway the proposed FPCA would make it obsolete. :-) Not trying to push the river's flow, just curious what the status of the new FPCA is? > While we're at it, let's please also delete the sentence: > > At this time, all license agreements shown are governed by the > contractual laws of the State of North Carolina and the intellectual > property laws of the United States of America, unless otherwise > indicated. Again, I'll make these notes in the Talk: page, but I don't have the auth to edit the [[Legal:Licenses]] page itself. - Karsten -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team: Red Hat Community Architecture uri: http://TheOpenSourceWay.org/wiki gpg: AD0E0C41
Attachment:
pgpRtWtrX2Gka.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
