On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
(Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we don't give them an explicit license (right)?
As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so the FPCA isn't needed here?
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
(Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we don't give them an explicit license (right)?
As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so the FPCA isn't needed here?
The alternative I've seen implemented in openSUSE is to have a license header on the top of every spec file.
For example: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/createrepo_c/c...
I'm not sure that would be really appreciated by most people, who are fine with the FPCA automatically handling this aspect and providing default licensing.
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
(Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we don't give them an explicit license (right)?
As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so the FPCA isn't needed here?
Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here speaking about the pagure instance running on the top of our dist-git.
Pierre
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so the FPCA isn't needed here?
Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here speaking about the pagure instance running on the top of our dist-git.
In that case, I *think* we might just be able to have a blanket statement. Let's see what Legal says?
-
Matthew Miller -
Neal Gompa -
Pierre-Yves Chibon