On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:19 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:09 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 The FPCA is now basically outdated 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). I agree, it's not a CLA. It's an un-CLA, as I've said more than once. :-) But those project defaults could be established without having an "agreement". See what CentOS does: https://www.centos.org/legal/licensing-policy/ On the topic of FPCA improvements, it would probably make sense (if the FPCA is retained) to replace the MIT license as the default code license with MIT No Attribution, aka MIT-0, recently approved by the OSI as an open source license: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0 (which would also enable a minor simplification of the FPCA text). Richard _______________________________________________ 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
