On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:09 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:40 PM Jason Yundt <swagfortress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > In the FCPA, The definition for “Moral Rights Clause Waiver” references “Section 4d of CC-BY-SA”, but that subsection doesn’t exist. > > > > Also, the Other FAQs’s first two questions still refer to CC BY-SA 3.0 even though the FCPA has been updated to use CC BY-SA 4.0. > > Indeed, this should have been caught when the FPCA was updated to > reference CC BY-SA 4.0 as the default content license. The relevant > perceived problematic feature of CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported was fixed in CC > BY-SA 4.0. > > I don't know if it is better to fix this error or to instead look into > eliminating the FPCA requirement. The FPCA is now basically outdated > and has the detriment of being pointed to by certain CLA advocates as > proof that "Red Hat supports CLAs". > But, it's not a CLA? It's essentially project defaults for when new content is contributed to the project. AFAIK, that's how we avoid having to do what SUSE does (stuff license headers at the top of every spec file and other things). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
