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

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 08:11:54PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway
> <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> > For some time now, Fedora has been working with Red Hat Legal to come up
> > with a replacement for the Fedora Individual Contributor License
> > Agreement (aka, the Fedora ICLA). As a result, the Fedora Project
> > Contributor Agreement (FPCA) has been approved by Red Hat Legal, and is
> > now being presented to the Fedora Community for comments and discussion.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Since any choice of a single default license for code is likely to be
> viewed by some as making some sort of a statement could you explain a
> little bit about the rationale for selecting the MIT License variant
> that was chosen as the initial default covering code contributions
> that are submitted without license preference?
> 
> I presume Red Hat Legal is fine with any free license?! Who selected
> the MIT License?

As far as I'm aware the MIT license provided the broadest possible
compatibility with other free software licenses while being itself a
fully free software license.  Since there are a fairly narrow range
(and small number) of code contributions that don't already fall under
an explicit license, compatibility was a primary concern.

While Red Hat Legal, specifically our licensing counsel Richard
Fontana, agrees with Fedora's overall stance and explicit rules on
free licensing, as shown on our wiki, I'm certain he would agree that
not every free license is equal in value for any given application.
In this case, with compatibility being a primary concern, the MIT
license seems better suited than some other free licenses.

The page Spot linked already has a list of everyone who participated
in the draft.  Spot hasn't talked about the ratification process, but
I suspect it will look something like this:

* Any changes that come out of the RFC process will be mulled over by
  Spot, Richard, and possibly other counsel.

* Draft changes will be announced as follow-ups.

* Final approval should be made by the Fedora Board once the draft has
  stabilized and been given the nod by counsel.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com