In: "The Fedora Project Board may, by public announcement, subsequently designate an additional or alternative default license for a given category of Contribution (a "Later Default License"). A Later Default License shall be a free software license (for Code) or a free content license (for Content) and shall be chosen from the list of acceptable licenses for Fedora, currently located at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing, as that list may be revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board. "
it doesn't indicate there is any chance to opt out of the new license even if it conflicts with the one the contribution was submitted under. Presumably this is intentional and desired.
However this agreement doesn't seem to put any minimum requirements for the "free" licenses listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . Without that we are just trusting on faith that that list will in fact list licenses that contributors think are "free".
What happens in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing is changed in error or by someone not authorized to make a change?
So perhaps there are a few ways that the license could be changed to a nonfree license?
On 04/19/2010 05:02 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
However this agreement doesn't seem to put any minimum requirements for the "free" licenses listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing . Without that we are just trusting on faith that that list will in fact list licenses that contributors think are "free".
The thought was that there was a accepted meaning of "Free License", but I can see how that might not be the case. We meant Free as in FSF.
What happens in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing is changed in error or by someone not authorized to make a change?
That page is locked down tight. Only members of Fedora Legal can change it, and that group is a very very controlled set of people. It (and the Legal: and Packaging: namespace) are pretty much the only wiki pages which are ACL restricted.
So perhaps there are a few ways that the license could be changed to a nonfree license?
Over my dead body. However, perhaps it would be worthwhile to define a "Free license" in the FPCA to remove all doubt.
~spot
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:13:20 -0400, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
What happens in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing is changed in error or by someone not authorized to make a change?
That page is locked down tight. Only members of Fedora Legal can change it, and that group is a very very controlled set of people. It (and the Legal: and Packaging: namespace) are pretty much the only wiki pages which are ACL restricted.
Think compromised machine. I would expect that if the page was changed by someone who had hacked the machine, that it wouldn't be legally binding, but don't really know.
On 04/19/2010 05:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 17:13:20 -0400, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
What happens in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing is changed in error or by someone not authorized to make a change?
That page is locked down tight. Only members of Fedora Legal can change it, and that group is a very very controlled set of people. It (and the Legal: and Packaging: namespace) are pretty much the only wiki pages which are ACL restricted.
Think compromised machine. I would expect that if the page was changed by someone who had hacked the machine, that it wouldn't be legally binding, but don't really know.
In such a scenario, it could always be changed. The text says "as that list may be revised from time to time by the Fedora Project Board." A change made by unauthorized individual would not be considered a revision by the Fedora Project Board (with Fedora Legal acting as their proxy).
~spot