On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) >> >> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need >> for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I >> know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for >> projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we >> don't give them an explicit license (right)? >> > > I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed > unless otherwise specified as per: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement > > Is that incorrect? > That's enforced through the FPCA. If we accept contributions without the FPCA or making sure each spec file has the appropriate license header, that could be quite problematic... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
