Fedora is still a Red Hat trademark.
That leaves Red Hat at least somewhat legally responsible.
The CLA has caused serious heartburn for some (e.g. Bert Freudenburg)
and I've been on his side in that (because the issues he sees could have
applied to me in previous years). RH/Fedora is revising the CLA now;
I've seen a copy, but the copy I saw still had some of these issues from
where I sit (I sent a lengthy reply to the RH lawyer working on it).
For certain people, it is *very* off-putting....
All the projects I've been involved with have not had such agreements:
Gnome, X.org Foundation (as opposed to some of its predecessors), etc.
- Jim
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 20:43 -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> > I'm struck by the disconnect between Greg's advice of "let anyone who
> > says they want to be a member be a member" and this new "let anyone who
> > enters into a legal agreement with us be a member"; my intuition sides
> > on the relaxed side of the continuum.
>
> On the other hand, isn't this exactly what Fedora does? But rather
> than go around in circles, let's ask the SFC for their input/advice.
>
> -walter
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> [email protected]
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
--
Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One Laptop Per Child
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
[email protected]
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
