On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:57:08AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote: > > For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA > > so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora > > accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required > > for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for > > a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that > > weren't covered by the FPCA. > > > > I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with > > examples that end with "version control systems administered by > > Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the fact that > > it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that > > version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be > > covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora, > > does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not > > sufficient for Bodhi? > > > > If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the > > past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA? > > > > I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required: > > > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388 > > Since Bodhi is on GitHub, contributions to Bodhi do not require FPCA. > License In = License Out is sufficient. Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all contributors to have agreed to the FPCA? Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything? Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
