On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 8:45 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:51 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would personally prefer we didn't. That has the knock-on effect of > > > > > making it possible for RHEL folks to not include Fedora changelogs > > > > > when they fork Fedora for RHEL, since the RPM changelogs are the only > > > > > attribution we actually *have* in the distribution. And I've > > > > > personally experienced very positive reinforcement for contributing to > > > > > Fedora and CentOS Stream by pointing to public attribution via changelogs. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Neal here as a deep gut reaction. Recognition is important, > > > > even if it is buried pretty deeply from endusers. > > > > > > > > That said, uh, we trim changelogs, so if we're arguing that that's the > > > > attribution part, we have some digging through git history to do to repair > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat is going to have to fix *a lot* of the process around > > > Fedora->RHEL/CentOS if we're going to rely on Git history for > > > attribution. Especially if rpmautospec gets broader adoption. I was > > > personally pretty upset about how the c9s branches were forked from > > > Fedora Linux 34, where all the Fedora history was *gone*. I know that > > > it's still there in the internal RHEL Dist-Git, but the fact they > > > > You don't know that, and it's actually not there. > > > > This is what the import commits look like: > > > > commit eb6f429d3f0c2f41aa5bb7f8e5153668aa812553 > > Author: XXXX XXXXXX <XXXXXX@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Oct 23 08:45:59 2020 -0700 > > > > RHEL 9.0.0 bootstrap > > > > The content of this branch was automatically imported from Fedora ELN > > with the following as its source: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc#90ca20fd0234925743db5e1e231b73b4a38749a9 > > > > then later > > > > commit df9ce2ff57e675edea493144401a1e1c9ed0f2b5 > > Author: DistroBaker <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue Dec 15 10:59:21 2020 +0000 > > > > Merged update from upstream sources > > > > This is an automated DistroBaker update from upstream sources. > > If you do not know what this is about or would like to opt out, > > contact the XXXX team. > > > > Source: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc.git#525dee4c87180db08e1776a > > d3cb0e66a9b38e81f > > > > > > Please don't fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are reality :) > > > > That is insufficient. And when rpmautospec based packages start coming > to RHEL, it'll be *definitely* insufficient because none of that will > make it into the generated spec file and built packages. That's 3 years down the road. Perhaps things can be improved between now and then. Fortunately, work done against RHEL now via CentOS Stream will have attribution in the MRs, etc. josh _______________________________________________ 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
