Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:02, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:

>> I agree that explicit licensing is a better option, and I do wish to
>> encourage it, but I do not wish to build procedure and red tape around
>> it, when we can be sure that we have what we need for Fedora in a
>> one-time FPCA agreement.
>
> FPCA itself is just procedure and red tape for people who just want to
> submit one background to the design team.  The larger community
> understands CC-BY-SA far better than FPCA might a advantage for
> established contributors but isn't helpful at all for people just
> getting started.  "Warning:  Must sign FPCA"  certainly looks like red

I think you are overblowing it by a bit. Here are the steps that would
be needed:

1) Person A makes a background, image, mp3, etc.
2) Person B who has signed the FPCA vets the item and makes sure its
license and content is ok (it doesn't rip off something, etc etc)
3) Person B submits it for Fedora.
4) Person B deals with issues with item and reports them to Person A
if A wants to know.

Which is 1:1 with packaging

1) Person A makes a program
2) Person B who has signed the FPCA vets, makes a spec file,etc etc
3) Person B submits it for Fedora
4) Person B deals with bugreports by either fixing them or reporting
them upstream.

The most important reason for doing this is to make sure that the core
is being maintained by committed and invested people.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren