On 1/21/06, Paul F. Johnson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > My only concern with mono stuff in extras is the indemnity clause in the > extras agreement whereby contributors take the fall if there is > something amiss. Will RH indemnify all .NET applications in extras? This > will be *the* big decider on the Extras debate (IMHO). I don't think you can expect RH to change the indemnification policy for mono applications in Extras compared to other applications. If you aren't comfortable with contributing mono crap or any other crap into Extras because of personal legal liability its perfectly acceptable and responsible to refrain from those sorts of contributions. I wouldn't contribute anything I wasn't comfortable with from a legal liability standpoint, whether it be mono-based or not. I certainty don't plan to look at contributing any mono related packages to Extras until I feel I have an adequate explanation as to the change in policy that allowed it into Core. But I don't expect the indemnification policy to change for mono specifically. If other contributors who have agreed to the contributor's agreement (which I will remind everyone is not dis-similar to what you have to do for apache contributions) feel comfortable with contributing mono packages or reviewing mono packages, then I'm not going to get in their way. I will be looking to our new fearless leader in the Extras space to be the liason in terms of making sure that the full explanation as to the change in mono policy is communicated well enough so contributors into Extras can assess the risks on an individual basis. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
