On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:59:07PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
I was trying to point at the new project contributor agreement
can mainly find Richard's article on the topic and the draft.
So I was going to ask what the status was, then I read this ...
The purpose of the Contributor License Agreement (CLA) is to
establish copyright control under Red Hat, Inc. on behalf of the
Fedora Project. By having a single entity hold copyright:
It goes on to summarize several points that sound inaccurate to me
(I'm not sure our CLA allows us to relicense, I believe we
sub-license, and it's a bit sketchy and not worth cheering about IMHO;
second point seems sketchy, I don't see how the CLA stops someone from
suing anyone, it just makes Red Hat a big target; third point seems
accurate but a bit rough.)
Regardless, the first paragraph is wildly inaccurate with both the CLA
and the intention of the Fedora Project, not even to mention the
intention of Red Hat.
I agree completely (except to say that the reference to "relicensing"
probably means 'changing the sublicensing terms used by Red Hat to
other sublicensing terms' and as such is kind of accurate - cf. Fedora
I pointed these problems out before - I wrote the unsigned comments on the talk page:
Regarding that third point, I'm not sure if that's simply restating
the first point or expressing something else. I guess it's true, but
the Fedora docs relicensing shows that in practice such power isn't
really exercised without making reasonable efforts to notify copyright
holders and provide opportunities to object or opt out.
Anyway the proposed FPCA would make it obsolete. :-)
While we're at it, let's please also delete the sentence:
At this time, all license agreements shown are governed by the
contractual laws of the State of North Carolina and the intellectual
property laws of the United States of America, unless otherwise