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
