On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:06 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:19 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:09 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > I don't know if it is better to fix this error or to instead look into
> > eliminating the FPCA requirement. The FPCA is now basically outdated
> > and has the detriment of being pointed to by certain CLA advocates as
> > proof that "Red Hat supports CLAs".
> But, it's not a CLA? It's essentially project defaults for when new
> content is contributed to the project. AFAIK, that's how we avoid
> having to do what SUSE does (stuff license headers at the top of every
> spec file and other things).
I agree, it's not a CLA. It's an un-CLA, as I've said more than once. :-)
But those project defaults could be established without having an
"agreement". See what CentOS does:
CentOS has the disadvantage (up until this point) of being a place
that nobody could really contribute meaningful code/packaging to. I
suspect we probably need to revise CentOS to match Fedora with CentOS
Stream 9 having a more direct contribution model.
On the topic of FPCA improvements, it would probably make sense (if
the FPCA is retained) to replace the MIT license as the default code
license with MIT No Attribution, aka MIT-0, recently approved by the
OSI as an open source license:
(which would also enable a minor simplification of the FPCA text).
I would personally prefer we didn't. That has the knock-on effect of
making it possible for RHEL folks to not include Fedora changelogs
when they fork Fedora for RHEL, since the RPM changelogs are the only
attribution we actually *have* in the distribution. And I've
personally experienced very positive reinforcement for contributing to
Fedora and CentOS Stream by pointing to public attribution via changelogs.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!