Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Jun 29 02:12:50 UTC 2011


On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 02:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 02:26 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > And on the other side of this coin, do we want to force maintainers to hunt
> > down authors of patches posted on upstream mailing lists and get them to
> > explicitly license these things so that the maintainers can then add them
> > to our packages with the explicit license or do we want the FPCA to
> > establish responsibility for this?
> 
> How does FPCA really help here?  If upstream has a unlicensed patch, 
> unless the upstream author has signed the FPCA which wouldn't be that
> likely, we have the responsibility to ensure that it is properly
> licensed.  The responsibility to do this is still with anyone using a
> patch in Fedora.  In practise,  we are relying on good faith more often
> as Adam Williamson suggested.

Just to clarify, the questions in my email were not rhetorical, they
were genuine questions that I'd love to get answers to. =) I know legal
and licensing issues can be very complex and often counter-intuitive.
There was a bit of suggestion in there too, yep, but I was writing from
the position of knowing that my understanding might be incomplete or
incorrect, and hoping someone would confirm or deny...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net




More information about the advisory-board mailing list