9:52 a.m.
For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA
so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora
accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required
for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for
a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that
weren't covered by the FPCA.
I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with
examples that end with "version control systems administered by
Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the fact that
it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that
version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be
covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora,
does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not
sufficient for Bodhi?
If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the
past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA?
I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388
9:57 a.m.
On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the
FPCA
so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora
accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required
for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for
a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that
weren't covered by the FPCA.
I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with
examples that end with "version control systems administered by
Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the fact that
it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that
version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be
covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora,
does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not
sufficient for Bodhi?
If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the
past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA?
I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388
Since Bodhi is on GitHub, contributions to Bodhi do not require FPCA.
License In = License Out is sufficient.
~tom
==
Red Hat
10:13 a.m.
New subject: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:57:08AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
> For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA
> so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora
> accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required
> for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for
> a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that
> weren't covered by the FPCA.
>
> I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with
> examples that end with "version control systems administered by
> Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the fact
that
> it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that
> version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be
> covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora,
> does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not
> sufficient for Bodhi?
>
> If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the
> past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA?
>
> I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required:
>
> https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388
Since Bodhi is on GitHub, contributions to Bodhi do not require FPCA.
License In = License Out is sufficient.
Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
Richard
10:21 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:57:08AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
> > For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA
> > so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora
> > accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required
> > for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for
> > a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that
> > weren't covered by the FPCA.
> >
> > I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with
> > examples that end with "version control systems administered by
> > Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the
fact that
> > it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that
> > version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be
> > covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora,
> > does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not
> > sufficient for Bodhi?
> >
> > If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the
> > past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA?
> >
> > I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required:
> >
> > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388
>
> Since Bodhi is on GitHub, contributions to Bodhi do not require FPCA.
> License In = License Out is sufficient.
Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
I don't see why projects on pagure.io need to require FPCA. It's
perfectly possible to create a FAS account and not sign the FPCA. And
pagure.io has several projects that are independent of Fedora itself,
so it would be really dumb to force that. Now, if projects under a
"Fedora" namespace on pagure.io want to do that, that's up to them.
But I definitely do not want to see FPCA enforced globally on
pagure.io.
As an aside, Fedora and non-Fedora things are jumbled up in pagure.io,
and someone should really sort that out...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
10:29 a.m.
On 28 March 2017 at 11:13, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:57:08AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 03/28/2017 10:52 AM, Randy Barlow wrote:
> > For a long time I didn't know that Bodhi should be covered by the FPCA
> > so some commits have gone in from contributors who don't have Fedora
> > accounts. Pierre-Yves Chibon had mentioned to me that it was required
> > for contributors to sign the FPCA, but then I forgot to check that for
> > a long time until today, resulting in even more contributions that
> > weren't covered by the FPCA.
> >
> > I read the FPCA again today and noticed that it defines "Submit" with
> > examples that end with "version control systems administered by
> > Fedora". Though the examples do say "without limitation", the
fact that
> > it doesn't just say "version control systems" seems to imply that
> > version control systems not administered by Fedora would not be
> > covered. Since Bodhi is on GitHub which is not administered by Fedora,
> > does Bodhi need FPCA for contributions? Is License In = License Out not
> > sufficient for Bodhi?
> >
> > If it is required, what should I do about the contributors from the
> > past who hadn't agreed to the FPCA?
> >
> > I wrote this pull request for the case that FPCA is required:
> >
> > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/1388
>
> Since Bodhi is on GitHub, contributions to Bodhi do not require FPCA.
> License In = License Out is sufficient.
Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
That currently seems to be the practice as we have had several
complaints from people wanting to just open a ticket and having to
agree to the FPCA, put in their phone number and location before doing
so. Whether they should or not is something I don't know about.
Richard
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
10:50 a.m.
New subject: FPCA for pagure.io (was: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?)
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:29:40AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 28 March 2017 at 11:13, Richard Fontana
<rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
> contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
>
[...]
That currently seems to be the practice as we have had several
complaints from people wanting to just open a ticket and having to
agree to the FPCA, put in their phone number and location before doing
so. Whether they should or not is something I don't know about.
Gah, you appear to be right. That (requiring FPCA to contribute to any
pagure.io hosted project) seems ... wrong to me, FWIW. It's
essentially giving anyone a good principled excuse to use GitHub
instead.
Richard
10:57 a.m.
New subject: FPCA for pagure.io
On 03/28/2017 11:50 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:29:40AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
> On 28 March 2017 at 11:13, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
>> contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
>>
[...]
>
> That currently seems to be the practice as we have had several
> complaints from people wanting to just open a ticket and having to
> agree to the FPCA, put in their phone number and location before doing
> so. Whether they should or not is something I don't know about.
Gah, you appear to be right. That (requiring FPCA to contribute to any
pagure.io hosted project) seems ... wrong to me, FWIW. It's
essentially giving anyone a good principled excuse to use GitHub
instead.
I concur. We should not require FPCA to contribute to pagure.io hosted
projects.
~tom
==
Red Hat
11:17 a.m.
Thanks for the prompt feedback! I am glad at the conclusion, because I
don't want to put up barriers to contribution for Bodhi. I'll close my
pull request.
11:23 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
There is the "default" license selection in there, which I personally
think is still valuable for things like spec files and other
miscellaneous non-explicitly-licensed contributions.
11:26 a.m.
New subject: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?
On 03/28/2017 12:23 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Richard Fontana
<rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Broader question which I only bring up since I have the opportunity
> do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
There is the "default" license selection in there, which I personally
think is still valuable for things like spec files and other
miscellaneous non-explicitly-licensed contributions.
Yeah. I think it is still useful for wiki content and spec files, at a
minimum.
~tom
==
Red Hat
12:53 p.m.
New subject: Does Bodhi need to be covered by the FPCA?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:26:00PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> Broader question which I only bring up since I have the
opportunity
>> do we really need the FPCA anymore for anything?
> There is the "default" license selection in there, which I personally
> think is still valuable for things like spec files and other
> miscellaneous non-explicitly-licensed contributions.
Yeah. I think it is still useful for wiki content and spec files, at a
minimum.
Does this need to be an explicit agreement, or can it be a "by
participating" statement instead?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
9:15 a.m.
New subject: FPCA for pagure.io
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:57:57AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 03/28/2017 11:50 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:29:40AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 28 March 2017 at 11:13, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> Does this imply that projects hosted at pagure.io require all
>>> contributors to have agreed to the FPCA?
>>>
> [...]
>>
>> That currently seems to be the practice as we have had several
>> complaints from people wanting to just open a ticket and having to
>> agree to the FPCA, put in their phone number and location before doing
>> so. Whether they should or not is something I don't know about.
>
> Gah, you appear to be right. That (requiring FPCA to contribute to any
> pagure.io hosted project) seems ... wrong to me, FWIW. It's
> essentially giving anyone a good principled excuse to use GitHub
> instead.
I concur. We should not require FPCA to contribute to pagure.io hosted
projects.
I just wanted to let you know that this requirement has been dropped.
Many thanks this! :)
Pierre
2591
days inactive
2593
days old
11 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Jon Stanley -
Matthew Miller -
Neal Gompa -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Randy Barlow -
Richard Fontana -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Callaway