Re: Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

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

 



On 06/27/2011 09:48 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Red Hat really likes that splash. I would prefer it remain.

Ironically,  when opensource.com was about to be launched,  I was
suggesting that splash in the first place but I am not sure putting up
that splash on fedoraproject.org gives the right impression.  
Would someone explain what that really means in this context?  

>> b)  Has a copyright notice,  "Red Hat, Inc and others" and that divides
>> the community into Red Hat vs others.  Since Red Hat doesn't have any
>> copyright ownership over Fedora.  Why not just (c) Fedora Project
>> contributors ?  Also refer to
> Please note that the "Fedora Project" is not a legal entity, and I am
> not sure that it can claim to hold copyright on anything.

Do note that what I suggest is different.  Fedora Project may not able
to hold copyright but Fedora Project contributors certainly can.  
Please correct me if I am wrong but both Richard Fontana and Pam seems
to agree with this.  There is no reason not to replace all instances of
(C) Red Hat and others within Fedora with (C) Fedora Project
contributors IMO. 

> I'm happy to have a larger discussion on this topic, but I think it is
> important for there to be a "safety net" to ensure that contributions
> made to Fedora are always under a Free License. I do not feel that
> requiring that contributors agree to the FPCA is a confusing choice.

I think you ignored the fact that it clearly is although one could argue
about whether this is worth the price or not.  As I pointed out earlier,
why does anyone submitting content under CC-BY-SA have to agree to the
FPCA?  CC-BY-SA is clearly acceptable as a in-bound license for Fedora
and having anyone sign the FPCA when there is a explicit license is
superfluous as far as I can see. What about patches submitted via
bugzilla where the person has not agreed to the FPCA?   I think explicit
licensing is always the better option.  For instance,   If a spec file
from Fedora gets reused by any other distro,  the FPCA default license
is far from obvious to them.    As a matter of policy,  I think we need
to seriously consider dismantling FPCA although FPCA is a enormous
improvement over the CLA.  I prefer we publish license recommendations
that covers the obvious use cases and handle the corner cases as
needed.  I would be happy to work on a initial draft if the Fedora Board
is willing to consider this. 

Rahul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux