Re: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:26:00PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> >> Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
> >> do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
> > There is the "default" license selection in there, which I personally
> > think is still valuable for things like spec files and other
> > miscellaneous non-explicitly-licensed contributions.
> Yeah. I think it is still useful for wiki content and spec files, at a
> minimum.

Does this need to be an explicit agreement, or can it be a "by
participating" statement instead?

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux