On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:53:15AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 08/28/2010 05:37 PM, Till Maas wrote: > > With the FPCA, the board could relicense everything. But RedHat appoints > > the board chair, who has veto power. If this is right, then this could > > be changed by making the chair seat another normal seat, that is voted > > for by the community and make the board elect it's chair by itself. > > Till, you know that's not true. > > With the FPCA, any "unlicensed" contributions that Fedora receives are > relicensed to a Fedora approved license. The only Fedora approved > licenses are Free licenses. If a contributor doesn't want Fedora > determining which Free license to use on their contribution, they can > put their choice of Free license on it, and Fedora then only has the > option of either using it under that explicitly chosen license or not at > all. > > So, no, the board could not relicense everything. Sorry, I was too imprecise. I meant that the "unlicensed" contributions can only be relicensed to another default license by the board. And if Red Hat is lost to some evil company, as far as I understand, the Fedora project might not have this power anymore, because of the power of Red Hat on the board. This might not have any significance in the future, e.g. it might not be needed to change the default license, but in case it is, this might be a problem. But in the past the similiar condition in the CLA was used to change the license of the contents in the wiki from something else to a creative commons license. So at least this power was needed in the past. Sorry again, I did not mean to imply that the FPCA can be used to overwrite the license of contributions under a specific license and I really like the new FPCA. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpUbC83yvgMr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
