Fedora Board Recap 07-06-2011

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:49:03PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Whoa. I object, if the Board is suggesting that the Asterisk agreement
> > bears any similarity to the FPCA.
> >
> > The Asterisk contributor agreement seems to be this one, the "Digium
> > Open Source Software Project Submission Agreement v3.0":
> > https://issues.asterisk.org/view_license_agreement.php
> 
> Yeah, perhaps I didn't make it as clear in the notes (and probably
> should have deleted it). we discussed the Asterisk agreement and the
> uniqueness of it due to the dual-licensing model of Asterisk, and
> Digium needs to have the rights to make a proprietary distribution of
> your contributions. This is obviously the *exact opposite* of what
> we're aiming for with the FPCA.

Right, I misunderstood. Sorry. 

Of course Digium doesn't "need" to have those rights, as I'm sure
there are other viable business models it could pursue. (There is a
possibility that counsel for Digium is subscribed to this mailing list
so I am sort of trolling that person too. :)
 
> The Canonical agreement was also discussed, as an example of where we
> don't want to go - that agreement provides *no* protection against
> proprietary relicensing.

You are correct, sir. 

- RF