[Fedora-legal-list] [Ambassadors] Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)

[Mathieu Bridon]

Hi Tom,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 22:21, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> Fedora Legal wishes to give the Fedora community a window of time for
> discussion and review of the FPCA. This window is open until May 18,
> 2010 (2010-05-18).

"""
Once a Later Default License has been designated, Your Unlicensed
Contribution shall also be licensed to the Fedora Community under that
Later Default License.  Such designation shall not affect the
continuing applicability of the Current Default License to Your
Contribution.
"""

Let's say I submit a spec file after this FPCA is accepted : it is
automatically licensed under the terms or the current default license:
MIT.

A month later, the default license changes to GPLv3. If I understand
the above paragraph correctly, this means that my spec file remains
licensed as MIT, not GPLv3?

Now, if I update my package, and thus modify the spec file, does it
remain forever under the terms of the MIT or does this new change
constitutes a new contribution and hence, the spec file is now GPLv3?
(it seems like the former would make it pretty hard to track what
license each spec file^W^WContribution is under at a given time)

Not that I have any concerns about this, I would just like to
understand correctly the FPCA (me not speak legalese fluent ;)

> P.S. Fedora Legal would like to give a huge thank you to the people
> involved behind the scenes to make the FPCA possible. The primary author
> was Richard Fontana, with feedback from Tom Callaway, Pamela Chestek,
> Paul Frields, and Robert Tiller. Feel free to give them gifts (for
> example, drinks or tasty snacks) as thank yous, although, this is not a
> requirement (legal or otherwise). ;)

Which one of you will be at FUDCon EMEA in September? :)


----------
Mathieu Bridon