On 15.01.2008 21:00, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 15.01.2008 20:21, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>> On 15.01.2008 20:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:23, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15.01.2008 19:01, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>>>>>>> /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | permission to use spec files in other >>>>>>>>> projects >>>>>>>>> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc >>>>>>>> Does anybody still care? Seems the Board either do not understand what >>>>>>>> we/I'm up to or they ignore it. >>>>>>> No one but you sees a problem. It's covered by the CLA. >>>>>> Please explain to me: What meaning has the CLA (a contract between a >>>>>> Fedora contributer and Fedora/Red Hat) to someone else that receives >>>>>> software from Fedora? >>>>>> I'm not familiar with US law, but in Germany a contract between A and B >>>>>> has no meaning to C. >>>>> CLA is not just a contract between A and B or more specifically it >>>>> allows the same rights to all recipients which in this case would >>>>> include C. I believe spot already explained that in >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00031.html >>>> Which I replied to in >>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg00032.html >>>> with the words: >>>> [...] I can't know if the all work I get from Fedora was submitted >>>> by someone that signed the CLA. [...] >>> All the work definitely isn't but spec files would be. >> Then I'm sure it can be written down to finally solve the iossue? > It is written down within the CLA
Which CLA? The one I signed in the early Fedora days is not the one that is available today. There are afaik even today different CLAs for Red Hat, IBM, Dell and community contributers -- I don't know what's written in them. And I don't known which of those is binding if I take something from Fedora. > We consulted with legal before on whether we can explain the CLA better > in another document and the legal opinion was that if any clarifications > are necessary, it should done within the CLA itself and not in a > separate document as any contradictions are considered risky IIRC. > However I think you can point this out in the EPEL FAQ for example in > this way: I'm not going to put any legal statement anywhere. That is exactly what we have the Board for and that's why I asked the Board to handle that. Cu knurd _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
