On 7/22/07, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you think so, I disagree. You are driving away contributors from fedora, by imposing more and more bureaucracy. If you really want this YOU (Jef Spaleta in person) will have to do it yourselves.
I am watching for upstream licensing changes in about as many places as I can think to look. But I am only two people... two very stupid people, with a reading comprehension problem. And please, I sincerely would like to hear off-list from any contributors( other than Ralf) who are being driven away from fedora because of the request to keep the rest of the contributor pool informed of re-licensing issues. I realize that every policy decision has an implementation cost. But given the importance of licensing to the overall availability of the software repository, I don't think the request to keep the maintainer pool informed is over-burdensome. I very much would like to avoid getting into a situation where a serious re-licensing issues necessitates a major disruption in workflow for everyone who currently uses cvs commit access. I'm not much of a gambler, so given the choice I'd rather encourage a proactive approach to the initial season of gpl3 re-licensing, then to wait to be reactive to a licensing problem after it appears inside our software repository. I'd absolutely love it if we could all collectively bury our heads in the sand as upstream codebases choose to re-license under gpl3. I'd love it if we could all be free to be irresponsible. But we can't, the continued availability of the software repository and build system depends on making sure we don't inadvertently introduce licensing violations. The only way we are going to avoid problems, especially with violations concerning library linking, is if we, as a community of peers, communicate re-licensing issues before they enter our repository. -jef"death eater's local #205"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
