On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller maxamillion@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 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)?
I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed unless otherwise specified as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement
Is that incorrect?
That's enforced through the FPCA. If we accept contributions without the FPCA or making sure each spec file has the appropriate license header, that could be quite problematic...
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:37:00PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed unless otherwise specified as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement Is that incorrect?
That's enforced through the FPCA. If we accept contributions without the FPCA or making sure each spec file has the appropriate license header, that could be quite problematic...
From what I understand from Richard Fontana, we could probably accomplish this with a statement somewhere, rather than requiring an explicit account agreement.