Fedora Board Recap 07-06-2011

[Jared K. Smith]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
>> ** Having a default licensing agreement makes sense, don't want to go
>> towards copyright assignment

> This makes it seem like a either/or choice.  That isn't the case.

Well, in this particular case, it doesn't have to be either/or.  But
as that applies to the FPCA, we either make it mandatory (and live
with a safety net of "implicit licensing"), or we don't name it
mandatory and go the route of "explicit licensing" on every single
contribution.  I don't see a way to avoid the either/or in that.

> My concerns as I clarified several times had nothing to do with usability.

That was a misunderstanding on our part, then.  I don't remember which
of the Board members brought that point up in the meeting, but I
apologize if we misunderstood your points.

> .In any case,  since the board seems uninterested in the issues I
> raised.  I will drop this discussion.

C'mon, Rahul.  Don't go there.  I think you're making a gross
mischaracterization if you think the Board is uninterested in the
issues you raised.  The very fact that we we've discussed things on
this list, then in a Board meeting, and had a lively debate about the
pros and cons of your proposal, and then a formal vote shows that we
do care about the issues you raised.  We might not agree completely
with you views on the issue, but that doesn't mean we're uninterested.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader