Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:56:56PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Just to cheerfully derail this for a bit - I doubt the usual case is
> > that the people checking in the patches are also the ones who created
> > them. I know that I more often check in a patch from somewhere else -
> > usually upstream - than ones I wrote.
> > 
> [snip analysis of what the FPCA has in this area]
> > 
> > So, is the FPCA really giving us much in this context, which may be the
> > most common context for patch contributions? Or are we still more or
> > less just relying on everyone doing the decent thing?

If I understand the question correctly, the FPCA is not supposed to
cover such patch contributions at all. Feature, not bug. 

> 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?

Again, the FPCA isn't supposed to cover this. Feature, not bug. (Nor
do I expect maintainers to ensure explicit licensing of upstream
patches, though there's nothing wrong with doing that.) 
 
- RF