Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:30:07AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 02:26 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > And on the other side of this coin, do we want to force maintainers to hunt
> > down authors of patches posted on upstream mailing lists and get them to
> > explicitly license these things so that the maintainers can then add them
> > to our packages with the explicit license or do we want the FPCA to
> > establish responsibility for this?
> 
> How does FPCA really help here?  If upstream has a unlicensed patch, 
> unless the upstream author has signed the FPCA which wouldn't be that
> likely, we have the responsibility to ensure that it is properly
> licensed.  The responsibility to do this is still with anyone using a
> patch in Fedora.  In practise,  we are relying on good faith more often
> as Adam Williamson suggested.
> 
Right.  I'm not arguing with you that the FPCA does not cover this.  I'm
asking, do we want to move away from relying on good faith (current
practice) to forcing maintainers to hunt down license information when they
do this?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20110629/315d808c/attachment.bin