On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, 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)?
I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed
unless otherwise specified as per:
Is that incorrect?
That's enforced through the FPCA. If we accept contributions without
the FPCA or making sure each spec file has the appropriate license
header, that could be quite problematic...
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!