Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
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 think you can get more information about this concept in Richard's article:
https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems
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)
If somebody states license of the contribution, then it has to be respected. Otherwise it is assumed that the contribution has similar licensing conditions as the target project.
Vít
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
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
