Re: [Fedora-legal-list] How to make a Pagure Pull Request and How it is licensed by default for contributors outside of 'packagers' group ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would assert that the "unlicensed
> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
> FPCA was particularly aimed at. In the typical case, a Fedora-related
> project makes clear what the applicable license of a repository (or of
> files within a repository) is/are, and under the "inbound=outbound"
> convention, that will be understood to be the license of the
> contribution.

I've never heard about "inbound=outbound convention".

I understand your answer as that:
it is irrelevant whether the contributor specified the license (e.g.
text "I submit this under GPL-2.0 license" in the pull request
comment) or whether none was specified, or whether the FPCA was
accepted by the contributor; since every contributor to a code (let's
say a single package repository) is always legally assumed to be under
the license othe code of that package has, unless specified
differently by the contributor.

Is my understanding correct ?

Michal

--

Michal Schorm
Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat

--

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:25 PM Michal Schorm <mschorm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm trying to answer this question:
> > "Under which license are the contributions done to Fedora Project,
> > unless license is specified - and how make this clear to the
> > contributors (or whether we make this clear enough)".
> > The answer is _probably_ FPCA [1].
>
> The FPCA basically says that there's a particular default license that
> applies in cases where the contribution is not "covered by explicit
> licensing terms that are conspicuous and readily discernible to
> recipients." This does not spell out what "explicit", "conspicuous"
> and "readily discernible" actually mean, much as you haven't explained
> what you mean by "specified". I would assert that the "unlicensed
> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
> FPCA was particularly aimed at. In the typical case, a Fedora-related
> project makes clear what the applicable license of a repository (or of
> files within a repository) is/are, and under the "inbound=outbound"
> convention, that will be understood to be the license of the
> contribution.
>
> I'm not aware of any reason to make anything clearer that it currently
> is. I think at this point the FPCA is sort of a historical curiosity
> that lives on because of inertia (other than as an indirect statement
> of licensing policy around certain special things like spec files but
> those could be addressed in a different way).
>
> > And this HTTPS workflow leads back to my original question - since FAS
> > users outside of 'packager' group AFAIK don't need to sign FPCA [1],
> > but can contribute a code - under which license or agreement it is
> > contributed ? If it is FPCA - are such contributors aware ?
>
> If contributors haven't signed the FPCA, the FPCA doesn't apply to
> their contributions. But this is most likely unproblematic, for much
> the same reason that Fedora could abandon use of the FPCA altogether
> without causing any significant problem.
>
> Richard
>
>
> > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement
> > [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/pull-requests/
> > [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/HTTPS-commits
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michal Schorm
> > Software Engineer
> > Core Services - Databases Team
> > Red Hat
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux