Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>  (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) 
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I
know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for
projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we
don't give them an explicit license (right)?

As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so
the FPCA isn't needed here?


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

The future of the packager group for dist-git

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
>  I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
>  for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I
>  know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for
>  projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we
>  don't give them an explicit license (right)?
>
>  As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so
>  the FPCA isn't needed here?
>  
The alternative I've seen implemented in openSUSE is to have a license
header on the top of every spec file.

For example:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/createrepo_...

I'm not sure that would be really appreciated by most people, who are
fine with the FPCA automatically handling this aspect and providing
default licensing.

-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

The future of the packager group for dist-git

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>  > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>  
>  I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
>  for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I
>  know Spot has said that "License In = License Out" is adequate for
>  projects on Github; I think Spot's concern with spec files is that we
>  don't give them an explicit license (right)?
>  
>  As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so
>  the FPCA isn't needed here? 
Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here
speaking about the pagure instance running on the top of our dist-git.


Pierre

The future of the packager group for dist-git

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>  > As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to
> cover this, so
>  > the FPCA isn't needed here?
>  Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here
>  speaking about the pagure instance running on the top of our dist-git. 
In that case, I *think* we might just be able to have a blanket
statement. Let's see what Legal says?

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader