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

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

 



On 06/28/2011 12:47 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> Depends on what you mean.  If you're talking about bugzilla you may be
> correct.  But currently, as you point out we don't require you to do either
> of those in bugzilla.  So if you propose that people do this in bugzilla,
> you're imposing an additional burden.

Right.  Since we don't do this now,  FPCA doesn't protect us and we have
to rely on the rights granted by a explicit license.  FPCA as a catch
all only works if the person submitting the patch has agreed to it which
is not the case in bugzilla. 

> OTOH, if you take away the FPCA and then demand that they
> put an explicit license on all of their patches, then you're expecting them
> to do the work of generating the license boilerplate for every single patch
> that they create and check in.

That is not true.  Most of the patches I have ever checked in have been
either cherry picked from upstream or trivial.  Non-trivial patches
being checked in without any license should be rare and in those cases
adding a copyright notice is not a big burden.   Major upstream projects
routinely merge in patches from dozens and dozens of people.  They all
require explicit license for the patches. We are going to be handling
much less patches.  I don't see why need a FPCA to handle this

Rahul

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