Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

There was a discussion in identi.ca earlier ( for context, 
https://identi.ca/conversation/71981654#notice-74661045) with Richard
Fontana,  Maureen Duffy and others about a few things in the
fedoraproject.org website and I am following up here because it seems to
be a project level decision. 

a)  Has a prominent splash "A  Red Hat Community Project" and it is not
clear what means.  If it merely means Red Hat is the primary sponsor,
that seems redundant with the notice in the bottom.  Can this be
clarified or removed?

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

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/2011-June/013474.html

I think it is better to remove any such notices or if it is really
required,  just make it clear that the copyright belongs to the
individual Fedora contributors and Red Hat has no particular claim to
that. 

c)  FPCA is certainly a much better replacement for the legal agreement
than the CLA was but I am not convinced that any type of contributor
agreement is required at all and still causes confusion and debates. For
example,  I don't see why anyone submitting content for the design team
under CC-BY-SA has to sign the FPCA as per the warning on top at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_connect_to_the_design_team_sparkleshare.
  For anything that is copyrightable, a requirement of a explicit
license seems to be a better choice.  In the case of things like spec
files and kickstart files,  one could have a copyright notice on each of
them similar to what openSUSE and others seem to have done already.  The
choice of a permissive license such as MIT or the same license as the
component if it is a upstream codebase would avoid the necessity to have
a "default license".  I assumed when it was originally proposed that
this was a Red Hat Legal requirement and didn't oppose it when it was
originally proposed but I am not sure it is
(https://identi.ca/notice/73733284).    So,  who is driving this and why?

Rahul